Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Secondary Education

Mr. Rees: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are taken by his Department to bring to the notice of local education authorities the results of changes in the organisation of secondary education in other areas.

The Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Quintin Hogg): Assessment of the results of such changes is a continuing process. Officers of my Department, including members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, exchange views with those of local education authorities in the course of their regular contacts and, in particular, when consulted about prospective changes.

Mr. Rees: Is the Minister aware that the old rigid attitude to the tripartite system of secondary education is breaking down and that well over half of the L.E.A.s have changed, or are changing, to some form of comprehensive education? Will not he issue an objective report which could be published showing the good points, and the bad points, of experiments that have been made which would be of assistance to L.E.A.s in all parts of the country?

Mr. Hogg: I thought that the tripartite system had already broken down seven years ago when I was Minister before. As regards the rest of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that the statement made by my right hon. Friend in a speech last year to the Association of Education Commit

tees was designed to fulfil that very object.

Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman takes the view, very properly, that the tripartite system has broken down, does he not think that there is an obligation on his Department to provide this information to the local education authorities which have to consider what is the best course to take in providing comprehensive secondary education? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this information ought in any case to be comprehensively brought together and made available to all the education authorities?

Mr. Hogg: The Question related to results, and, of course, as so many of these experiments have not yet produced results, I think that it would be rather difficult to do that. Moreover, of course, the local education authorities themselves are in constant contact, as my Answer indicated, with my Department and I do not think that there is any information in the Department which is not available to them all the time.

Stoke-on-Trent Plan for Education

Mrs. Slater: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has studied the Stoke-on-Trent Plan for Education; and when the city may expect a decision.

Mr. Hogg: Representatives of the authority discussed their plan with officers of my Department last February. The next step is for the authority to publish notices of their proposals under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944, and I understand that this has been done. The statutory period for objections must then run, and in the light of any objections received, I shall then consider my decision.

Mrs. Slater: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for saying that all the procedure is now going ahead, may I ask him, in view of the time that has been taken for the working out of this scheme and the great importance of the scheme to the planning in the city, whether he could say that once all this procedure has been gone through we can expect a very early decision on the scheme?

Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Lady knows, I have to observe something like judicial impartiality about these cases, but, obviously, I will try to avoid any undue delay.

Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why the school building programme for Newcastle-under-Lyme which he has approved for 1965–66 is of lesser value than the programmes approved for 1962–63 and 1963–64.

Mr. Hogg: Priorities between different areas inevitably vary from year to year as the school building programme proceeds. The total sums to be spent in any particular area likewise vary from year to year.

Mr. Swingler: Whilst being grateful for the fact that the Minister has at last agreed to include Friarswood School in the programme for rehousing, may I ask him whether he is aware that Newcastle-under-Lyme had a very small programme last year—it fell to a very low level—that this programme which has now been approved is substantially less than that for the two years mentioned and that the Newcastle-under-Lyme education authorities have only put up projects urgently needed in the district? Would he not, therefore, be willing to reconsider this in view of the fact that the programme is at a relatively low level?

Mr. Hogg: I think the hon. Gentleman must understand that I must regard the priority list of Staffordshire as a whole, and it is, I think, in relation to that that the variations of the particular programmes year by year of Newcastle-under-Lyme have to be viewed.

School-Leaving Age

Dr. Bray: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average age of leaving school in the Northern Region, and in England and Wales, respectively.

Mr. Hogg: I do not have the information in this form, but, as a rough indication, at the end of 1962, about 73 per cent. of pupils in the Northern

Region who became 15 during that year had left school. The corresponding proportion for England and Wales as a whole was about 65 per cent.

Dr. Bray: Does the Secretary of State not feel that this does indicate a difference between the sheer quantity of educational provision in different parts of the country? Does he feel, reflecting as it does the difference over many generations of occupational structure, housing provision, many other factors, that there is need for some more new measures to redress the inequalities in the educational provision as between different regions of the country?

Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that I would accept the first premise of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I am advised that this is a genuine difference in parental attitudes and social traditions rather than a question of quantitative provision, but it was, of course, precisely for this reason that we decided to raise the school-leaving age.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the judgment he has expressed is a subjective one and that we are faced with an objective fact, that there appear to be disparities between different regions of the country in the opportunity given in education? Is not this a matter on which we ought to have an immediate survey, so that we have the facts? Is it not a matter which ought to have the attention of the Government?

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree that my judgment was entirely subjective. It was based upon inquiry, which the hon. Gentleman's original Question put me on: I naturally inquired as to the difference, and why it was assessed to be different. But I would agree that these are matters which require constant attention.

Dr. Bray: Does the Secretary of State not feel that parental attitude, which is certainly a factor, is in itself partly due to the lack of provision in former years, and that one way in which to make a change in this is by altering the provision today?

Mr. Hogg: That is precisely why we are raising the school-leaving age.

Teacher-Child Ratio

Dr. Bray: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of children per teacher in the Northern Region, and in England and Wales, respectively; and in each case what proportion of the teachers is temporary.

Mr. Hogg: In the spring term of 1963 there were 24·9 pupils per teacher (including the full-time equivalent of part-time teachers) in the Northern Region, compared with 24·0 in England and Wales. 1·5 per cent. of the full-time teachers in the Northern Region were temporary teachers compared with 1·6 per cent. in England and Wales.

Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that his definition of temporary teachers does not seem to take into account the more rapid rate of turnover of teachers which must be called for in the Northern Region? Is he further aware that the difference in the number of children per teacher between the Northern Region and the rest of the country does clearly indicate the disparity in teacher provision which it is the responsibility of his Department to correct?

Mr. Hogg: It does indicate a disparity of 0·91. As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I would say that if I am asked a statistical question I must give the answer to it in the terms in which it is asked.

Mr. K. Lewis: Despite the fact that there is a certain shortage of teachers in the country, would my right hon. Friend confirm to us that we have no intention of indulging in the part-time attendance of children at school, as seems to be the policy of the Opposition, in which there is a certain amount of doubt?

Mr. Hogg: I hope we shall learn one lesson, and that is not to try to prejudge the findings of the Plowden Committee.

William Shakespeare

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, with a view to encouraging and retaining interest in the works of William Shakespeare, he will take steps to limit the amount of study devoted to this author in schools.

Mr. Hogg: No, Sir.

Mr. Stratton Mills: But is there not a danger of over-concentration on the works of William Shakespeare in our schools? In looking at examination programmes would my right hon. Friend look again at the possibility of including some of the plays of slightly more modern British and international playwrights, such as Ibsen, Tennessee Williams and Arnold Wesker?

Mr. Hogg: I think my hon. Friend really must appreciate that I do not in my Ministry decide the content of the curriculum, but I am not sure that "The Merry Wives of Windsor" is altogether out of date.

Dr. King: Is the Secretary of State aware that the grammar schools of England for the last forty years have not only helped children to understand Shakespeare, which is important, but also to enjoy him in dramatic performances, and that what his hon. Friend is asking for, in a wide range of drama, is going on throughout the whole of school education today, and that if there is any allergy to Shakespeare it is not the teachers' fault?

Mr. Jennings: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposal contained in this Question would bring the most retrograde position? Is he aware that, apart from the many merits of William Shakespeare as an Englishman, this would lead the way and leave the door quite ajar to dictation from a Minister as to what should be taught exactly in the schools and how much of a particular subject? Is he aware, if at the next General Election or any subsequent General Election we were ill-favoured enough to get a reactionary Government returned, what the prospects of teaching in our schools would be?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question, but the original Question was "To be or not to be?" and my answer was "Not to be".

Mr. George Thomas: Very good! Ten out of ten.

Television (Fourth Channel)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action has now been taken towards


developing a fourth television channel exclusively for educational and instructional purposes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hogg: I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General a variety of proposals which have been made for experiments in educational broadcasting and which have implications for future educational and broadcasting policies. It is too early yet to make a statement.

Mr. Mayhew: What is the reason for this lamentably slow and timid attitude of the Government towards the idea of a fourth television channel devoted entirely to education and instruction? Where are the obstacles? Can the Government not pay more attention to the demands of educationists in this field and less attention to the pressure of the commercial radio lobby?

Mr. Hogg: I think that the educationists in this field would be a little more cautious than the hon. Gentleman has been in his supplementary question. I feel that they would stress the importance of experimentation and a number of different experiments. It is precisely that sort of question which I am seeking to explore with my right hon. Friends.

Mrs. White: Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow, to give one example which has been mentioned frequently in the House, the B.B.C. to go ahead with sound broadcasting programmes on an experimental basis, which it could do tomorrow if given leave?

Mr. Hogg: What the B.B.C. allows is surely a question for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the experiment which the Independent Television Authority has proposed has been hanging fire for about nine months and that there is a great danger of all the people with an interest in it losing that interest entirely?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think there is much danger of people losing interest. I can certainly promise my hon. Friend that I do not propose to lose interest in it.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Government have been riding off on the excuse

of experimentation for several years? Is he also aware that hundreds of controlled experiments have been taking place in many countries, and that it is now time to take a decision? Will he tell us whether it is "to be" or "not to be" for educational television?

Mr. Hogg: Whether it is better to bear
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
I do not think I can answer the "to be or not to be" question today.

Teachers

Commander Kerans: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that teachers remain in their appointments for a minimum period of one year in order to avoid constant changes detrimental to the education of young children; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hogg: The detrimental effect of frequent staffing changes is well known, but I would not think it either practicable or desirable to impose a requirement as to length of service upon the conditions of employment agreed between teachers and their employers.

Commander Kerans: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in a case in my constituency a child had about six teachers in less than eighteen months? Surely that sort of thing is detrimental to our youngsters. Surely the regional authorities can plan a little better in the areas, and surely the recruiting drive by the Ministry should be stepped up even further.

Mr. Hogg: No one denies the detrimental effect on children of frequent staffing changes. However, my hon. and gallant Friend must face the fact that the commonest reason why teachers leave is that they marry and have children, and I do not know quite what he expects me to do about that.

Mr. Willey: While I fully accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his original reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the problem here is particularly that of schools in slum areas and that his attention has been called to it in the Newsom


Report? Can he say what action is being taken in the light of the Newsom Report?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman should remember that it was very largely because of difficulties of this kind that we introduced the quota system some years ago. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman would not dissent from the policy of the Government about national pay scales, which is, of course, one of the issues raised by this kind of Question. I imagine that he would not wish us to depart from our policy.

Mr. Willey: I should have expected that the Government would have discussed this by now with the teachers' representatives.

Mr. C. A. Bentley (Pension)

Dr. Alan Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has reviewed the case of Mr. C. A. Bentley, a former teacher, with regard to his right to an increased pension; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Hogg: I have reviewed Mr. Bentley's case and I am satisfied that his pension was correctly assessed under the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts. In particular, I cannot accept Mr. Bentley's claim that his service at Reading from 1939–1940 ought to be counted as full-time service and pensionable, since it is clear that he was engaged and paid by the L.C.C. as a part-time teacher.

Dr. Glyn: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend not only for that Answer, but for the deep personal interest which he has taken in this case. Would he not agree that this matter has been going on for a large number of years and that the decision which he has made must be accepted by Mr. Bentley as final?

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that it must. As my hon. Friend has said, this decision has been taken repeatedly by every Minister of Education since the late Mr. Tomlinson.

Adult Education

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the expenditure on adult

education, excluding grants for longterm residential colleges, last year; and what is to be the ceiling on such expenditure this year.

Mr. Hogg: Grants from my Department towards adult education, excluding the residential colleges, totalled £816,460 in 1963–64 and are estimated at £868,750 in 1964–65.

Mr. Allaun: As costs are rising, does not this mean an actual contraction, or at least a virtual standstill, in adult education at the very time when the Government are promising a big expansion in education? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, as a result, in some areas the number of classes has had to be slashed? As the total expenditure involved is only 1/10th per cent of all Government education expenditure, will he consider abandoning this year's ceiling?

Mr. Hogg: No, Sir. The Estimates for this year were designed to retain the expansion authorised and attained in 1963–64. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has suggested about increased costs, I should say that in addition to the figures which I gave, a recent salary award will, of course, be the subject of a Supplementary Estimate to take account of increased salaries.

Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been dismay in the adult education world because of the Government's action, not so much this year, perhaps, as in resisting any sort of expansion for next year? Will he seriously reconsider this matter before the Estimates for next year are considered?

Mr. Hogg: There has been no decision about next year that I am aware of. I am, of course, aware of the criticism of what was done this year, but even so, it does not do to overstate the case. It does not involve a contraction. It involves holding the expansion of the previous year.

Youth Club (Wine Tasting)

Mrs. Slater: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is aware that Surrey Education Committee plan to spend money in a youth


club to instruct young people on wine-tasting; what guidance he has issued to local education authorities in this regard; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Hogg: I understand that the Surrey local education authority have no such intention and I see no need to issue any guidance.

Mrs. Slater: I have in my possession a cutting which is a report in the Daily Telegraph of the proposals of the Surrey Education Committee. While I agree with all the other suggestions about youth club work, in view of our problems with adolescents, should not this part of the proposal be cut out, especially when, although students will pay something towards their courses, money which is part of the general subsidy to youth clubs is to be used for this purpose?

Mr. Hogg: I am not responsible for statements in a cutting. I understand that in one area of Surrey an isolated course under the title, "Man about Town", for boys aged 16 and over, included one talk about wine, at which the lecturer produced small samples of wines. I understand that nearly all those who attended this course were aged 18 or over.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that whatever the age of these young people, he ought to be concerned about protecting them from the evils of drink. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I realise that I cannot speak with the experience of many hon. Members opposite. None the less, is he aware that it is very offensive for public money to be used to encourage young people to acquire the habit of drinking?

Mr. Hogg: I was asked a specific Question about the Surrey education authority and my information was that the statement in the Question was a mare's nest.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if this were a true statement it would be another example of gracious living in an affluent society?

Mr. Hogg: Wine, as we all know, maketh glad the heart of man, but it

does not necessarily follow that it ought to make glad the hearts of young children.

School Buildings

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the costing of new school buildings is being calculated now on the basis of a school-leaving age of 16 years in 1970.

Mr. Hogg: The school buildings needed to cater for the additional pupils who will be in school as a result of raising the school leaving age are not included in the two-and-a-half year programmes for 1965–68. These programmes include, as have those for earlier years, the secondary places needed to provide for pupils who stay on voluntarily beyond the age of fifteen.

Mr Grimond: Would not the Secretary of State think it wise to include provision for the extra pupils in the school-building programme, as, when the school-leaving age is raised, presumably those schools will have to be used by them?

Mr. Hogg: There is something in what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he should also bear in mind two facts. First, the physical confirmation of, say, a four-class entry school for a five-year course is not different from a five-class entry school for a four-year course and that these things are rather well left to the local authorities whose policies about school organization at the secondary stage are in a rather fluid state. Secondly, I am told that to start to predict now what would be needed to deal with the extra pupils in September, 1971, would be a little premature.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in view of the fact that the school-building programme is continuing for some time at a cost of over £75 million a year, what steps are being taken to ensure that the design of schools is kept up to date in the light of modern technology, particularly with regard to insulation against heat and noise; and whether it is intended to continue indefinitely with current school designs involving a large area of glass in the walls.

Mr. Hogg: The Department's development group continues to be concerned with all aspects of modern building technology, and a building productivity group has recently been set up in the Department. I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given on 26th March to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) regarding the use of glass in schools. My Department has also been connected with the study of sound insulation of schools near London Airport.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While I hope that the Building Productivity Group will seriously look at the question, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to point out to it that in modern schools with very large areas of glass, in sunny times like the present the children are cooking with the heat and venetian blinds have to be fitted, and that in winter there is an excessive use of fuel to keep them warm? Would he consider instructing local authorities that the windows ought to be smaller and that we ought to use modern techniques to build schools in a reasonable way?

Mr. Hogg: Many of these aspects of the matter are already known to the Productivity Group. Fashions in school building change and I think that there is a slight trend away from the use of glass which was so popular a year or two ago.

Married Women Teachers

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will take steps to encourage the reorganisation of teacher duties in order to make it possible for more trained married women to undertake part-time teaching.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Christopher Chataway): The organisation of teaching duties is a matter I must leave to the schools themselves and the employing authorities. My Department is, however, studying the recruitment and employment policies of those authorities with a high proportion of part-time teachers and it will certainly publicise successful practice wherever this is found.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that in the questionnaire which married teachers answered as a result of the Kelsoe Committee inquiry, more than one quarter of both pre-war and post-war teachers said that a rearrangement of the time-table and more part-time posts were factors which would induce them to return to teaching?

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend is well aware of both those factors, and I would not deny that it is extremely important that schools should adjust themselves to a greater number of part-timers, a point which my noble Friend the Minister of State stressed in another place the other day.

Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that part-time teachers are a necessary evil, but that schools have difficulty in adjusting their programmes to part-time teachers? It would be a mistake radically to alter the work of our schools on the assumption that we are to have part-time teachers for all time.

Mr. Chataway: There is a great variation between areas and between schools in the success with which they modify to part-time teachers, but if all can follow the practice of the best, undoubtedly the teacher supply position will be eased.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps he proposes to take to encourage married women to return to the teaching profession.

Mr. Chataway: The national publicity campaign which began on 13th April has been well supported by local education authorities. My right hon. Friend proposes to see the response to this before deciding the next steps.

Mr. Lubbock: Would not it be a good thing to have a debate on the Kelsoe Report at some time?

Mr. Chataway: That is hardly a question for me.

Mrs. Emmet: Will my hon. Friend impress on his right hon. Friend that one of the best ways of recruiting further married women to the teaching profession—and indeed other professional women—is to alter the basis of taxation of married couples?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend will be aware that since the Surtax levels were raised it is only a minority of wives who would be likely to be in an extremely unfavourable position as a result of being employed.

Mrs. White: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether local authorities are being encouraged to appoint someone on their staff especially to study the problems of potential married women teachers in their areas, and to give advice where necessary?

Mr. Chataway: I do not know of any particular appointments of that kind by local authorities, but I shall bear that suggestion in mind.

Secondary School, Twickenham

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the earliest date on which he expects the rebuilding of Orleans County Secondary School, Twickenham, to start; and whether it can be brought forward before the 1967–68 programme.

Mr. Chataway: It has not been possible to include this project in the school building programme for 1965–67. My right hon. Friend will in due course consider it for inclusion in 1967–68.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon Friend tell his right hon. Friend that the site for this school was acquired from the Post Office about three years ago, and that therefore they are able to proceed from the point of view of having a site? This school is in very old and congested buildings, and could not my hon. Friend bring this project forward earlier than 1966?

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend has been fully informed of the need for a new school in this case, and will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, but this case was not so urgent as a number of others in other parts of the country.

Infants' School, Leyton

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in view of the disappointment in Leyton at his decision not to authorise the building of a new Church Mead Infants'

School, despite the Essex County Education Committee's approval, and in view of the urgent need for this school, whether he will now reconsider his decision.

Mr. Hogg: I have received no representations about this project. I will consider any case put to me by the Essex Authority but I cannot add to the 1965–66 school building programme, which is now authorised in full.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that this is a very old school—nearly 100 years old—and that it is very dark, lacks amenities, and is very noisy, and that there is a unanimous desire, especially as land is available, that the building should be destroyed and a better one put in its place? Will he give sympathetic consideration to the question if the local education authority and the local borough council approach him again?

Mr. Hogg: I will consider any representations, subject to the general qualification that I made in my original Answer. I am aware of the conditions at this school, and I agree that new buildings are desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITIES

Chief and Senior Technicians

Mr. Pounder: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will relax the regulations governing the qualifications for the grading of chief and senior technicians in universities.

The Minister of State for Education and Science (Sir Edward Boyle): No regulations on this matter are made by my Department. The qualifications required for appointments to the grades of chief and senior technician are matters for the universities.

Mr. Pounder: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. I was under the impression that his Department acted in conjunction with the University Grants Committee on this point and that there was this chronic shortage of senior and chief technicians in the universities. I speak from personal experience in this matter. Many people are being deterred from going into


universities by the restricted promotion prospects. Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this situation is one which is almost a case of dead men's shoes rather than of ability?

Sir E. Boyle: The situation is that the Universities' Committee on Technical Staffs, on which, I understand, Queen's University, Belfast, is represented, made recommendations to the universities about the promotion of senior technicians and about the examination qualifications which should be recognised for all purposes, but, of course, universities are not committed by the recommendations. As autonomous institutions they must themselves decide their implementation.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENCE

Broiler and Roaster Chickens

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the letter sent by him to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan, on 21st April concerning the relative nutritional value of food provided from broiler and roaster chickens.

Sir E. Boyle: As the hon. Member knows, I wrote to him on 21st April to draw his attention to an error in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 9th April, 1964, which I am having corrected for the Bound Volume.

Mr. Rankin: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for telling me that part of his reply was misleading and incorrect in that letter? Has the right hon. Gentleman given any further consideration since then to the point I raised about arsenic in broilers? Is he aware that while the quantity of arsenic which may be fed to these broilers is limited by the Pharmacy Acts, the amount of arsenic which the human being can acquire from broilers is quite unlimited? Does he not realise that this is a somewhat serious situation? If he has not inquired into it, would he look into it again?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry about the misreporting of one word of mine which I have tried now to put right. The hon. Gentleman has, since that ques-

tion, pursued the matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I think he does not, perhaps, take fully into account the provisions in the Arsenic in Food Regulations, 1959, which go a long way to meet the hon. Gentleman's point.

Reactors

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the total effort of the Atomic Energy Authority is in work on graphite moderated reactors; and whether he will direct the Authority to pay greater attention to other reactor systems, in view of the doubt as to whether this type of reactor, especially on account of its high capital cost, is best suited for electricity generation in this country.

Sir E. Boyle: One third of the Authority's current effort on civil reactor development is on graphite moderated reactors, including participation in the international "Dragon" Project. As regards the second part of the Question, we have not yet the necessary information to compare the suitability of different reactor systems for electricity generation in this country. The Authority's current development effort on the advanced boiling water reactor is comparable with that on the graphite moderated advanced gas-cooled reactor.

Mr. Digby: Is it not a little disquieting that one public corporation appears to take a different view from another public corporation which is its chief customer? Is it not possible that we have taken the wrong turning by specialising so much in graphite-moderated reactors, and might it not be well to have a general review of this question?

Sir E. Boyle: There is no question yet of having taken a wrong turning. It is desired as a result of tendering inquiries that we should make a clear and fair comparison between the cost of an A.G.R. and of a B.W.R. built to the same standard and specification. We must await the decision which will be made after tenders have been received before considering this matter finally. There is no question of having taken a decision yet

Mr. Lubbock: In making a comparison between the A.G.R. and the other


systems which would have to be imported from abroad, will development costs which have already been incurred by the Atomic Energy Authority be spread over the likely number of stations which will be ordered, or would they be written off altogether?

Sir E. Boyle: These are precisely the matters that we want to consider further, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the capital cost and the fuelling costs of all existing expenditure on development will be taken into account.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider again the inevitable emphasis which there must be on policy resulting from the fact that there is really only one customer for the Atomic Energy Authority here in the shape of the Central Electricity Generating Board? Bearing in mind the very considerable potential market which there may be abroad for atomic reactors, would he consider consulting his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and possibly his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to see whether or not we can work out a system which ensures at least that the single customer factor does not result in our losing overseas markets?

Sir E. Boyle: That raises rather wider considerations, but I can assure my hon. Friend that this comparison will be a very important one and will require very skilled work, and the Government are determined that it should be done fairly and thoroughly.

Bronchitis and Emphysema

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the studies which have been carried out on the incidence of bronchitis and emphysema in the coalmining and other industries; and if he will make available to hon. Members a summary of the results of these studies.

Sir E. Boyle: The results of nine surveys of the occurrence among industrial workers of respiratory symptoms associated with chronic bronchitis and emphysema have been published since 1955. The material is too lengthy and diverse for convenient summary, but, with permission. I will circulate a list

of references to these studies in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us an impartial and authoritative summary of the up-to-date research on this subject? Is he aware of the widespread opinion that we are not doing justice at the moment to workers who are disabled by dust diseases and that all we are lacking is authoritative evidence about the relationship between bronchitis and emphysema and certain occupations where there is a risk of dust? Can we have some effort to produce a summation of the results of all this scientific effort?

Sir E. Boyle: I can tell the hon. Gentleman, of whose interest in this matter I am aware, that the investigations to date have not demonstrated a connection between bronchitis and emphysema and conditions of employment. A number of very important surveys are now in progress of which I am ready to send the hon. Gentleman details. I do not think that we should yet reach a final decision in the matter.

Following is the list of references:

Cochrane, A. L., Cox, J. G., Harman, T. F. "A 'Follow-up' chest x-ray survey in the Rhondda Fach. I. Pulmonary tuberculosis". Brit. med. J. 1955, 1, 371.

Higgins, I. T. T., Cochrane, A. L., Oldham, P. D., Gilson, J. C. "Respiratory symptoms and pulmonary disability in an industrial town". Brit. med. J. 1956, 2, 904.

Higgins, I. T. T. "Respiratory symptoms, bronchitis, and ventilatory capacity in a random sample of an agricultural population". Brit. med. J. 1957, 2, 1198.

Higgins, I. T. T., Cochrane, A. L., Gilson, J. C., Wood, C. H. "Population studies of chronic respiratory disease. A comparison of miners, foundry-workers, and others in Staveley, Derbyshire". Brit. J. industr. Med. 1959, 16, 255.

Higgins, I. T. T. "A symposium on industrial pulmonary diseases". London, J. & A. Churchill Ltd., 1960. (Edit.: King, E. J. and Fletcher, C. M.) Chap. 16.

Higgins, I. T. T., Cochrane, A. L. "Chronic respiratory disease in a random sample of men and women in the Rhondda Fach in 1958". Brit. J. industr. Med. 1961, 18, 93.

Mair, A., Smith, D. H., Wilson, W. A., and Lockhart, W. "Dust diseases in Dundee textile workers". Brit. J. industr. Med. 1960, 17, 272.

Rogan, J. M., Ashford, J. R., Chapman, P. J., Duffield, D. P., Fay, J. W. J., and Rae, S. "Pneumoconiosis and respiratory symptoms in miners at eight collieries". Brit. med. J. 1961, 1, 1337.

Schilling, R. S. F., Hughes, J. P. W., Dingwall-Fordyce, I., and Gilson, J. C. "An epidemiological study of byssinosis among Lancashire cotton workers". Brit. J. industr. Med. 1955, 12, 217.

Marine Nuclear Propulsion (Report)

Mr. J. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now publish the Padmore Report.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish the Padmore Report on marine nuclear propulsion.

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why he has delayed publishing the Padmore Report.

Sir E. Boyle: The Report is being published today.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend for reacting so properly and promptly. Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make a further statement about the development of the Vulcain reactor?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot make a statement today—after all, the Report was received by the Government only in April. However, the Government will make a further statement on this subject as soon as possible.

Dr. Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the long history of procrastination in this matter? Can he answer a question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Prime Minister and other Ministers have failed to answer for a long time and which now seems to be much more pertinent with the publication of the Padmore Report, namely, is it the Government's intention to use any vessel now being built for the Royal Navy, for example, the fleet replenishment vessel being built in my constituency, to house this reactor?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the second part of his question goes far beyond the Question on the Order Paper, but I will say that the Government want to base

their decision on a proper consideration of the Working Group's Report.

Mr. Millan: Is it not somewhat misleading to give the impression, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, that the Government have had only from the beginning of April to consider this matter? Is there not a long history over many years? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon give a specific date for when the Government will announce their decision either to go ahead or to abandon the whole idea?

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that I cannot give a specific date, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of the statement in the Padmore Report that
There is a paucity of established facts and reasonably assured deductions on which to base conclusions…
I think that it is right that we should consider this matter thoroughly before reaching a decision.

Mr. Willey: As we now have the Padmore Report, and as we have been waiting for a decision because we did not have it, and as the Report asks the Government to take a decision, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us that a decision will be taken this Session and that we will have a White Paper which we can debate?

Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are well aware of the importance of reaching a decision as soon as they can.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is now the total expenditure by Her Majesty's Government on the development of the Vulcain reactor.

Sir E. Boyle: The Atomic Energy Authority's share of expenditure to date on the Vulcain reactor is about £1 ¼ million. The Authority are partners in a joint project with Belgonulceaire, who have agreed that this information may be made public.

Mr. Digby: Without wishing to anticipate the Padmore Report, which I am glad is being published today, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether full development is continuing, and whether adequate money is available for the continuation of this project?

Sir E. Boyle: There are two points there. First, there is the A.E.A. commitment on scientific and experimental work on the Vulcain, and there is also a continuing commitment during the period of the fuel testing experiment with the BR-3 reactor, and for that about £750,000 will be spent over the next three or four years.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CAMPAIGN AND ASWAN DAM

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received for the publication of a full account of the events leading up to the Suez campaign in 1956.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now authorise the publication of an official history of the Anglo-French Suez campaign.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will now authorise the publication of an official history of the Suez campaign; and if, to that end, he will collate all available information on the circumstances in which the Egyptian Government took possession of the Suez canal and on the related military agreements and manoeuvres;
(2) if he will publish all the documents in the possession of Her Majesty's Government about the facts which caused them to refuse financial assistance to Egypt for the construction of the Aswan Dam, the negotiations with the United States Government which led to this decision, and the representations made by the Egyptian Government to Her Majesty's Government on the matter.

Mr. D. Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will set up a commission of inquiry with terms of reference similar to those of the Dardanelles Commission in 1916, namely, to inquire into the origin, inception and conduct of the operation by British forces directed at Suez and elsewhere in Egypt in 1956.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): From time to time requests are made for the publication of documents on particular questions or the commissioning of official histories on particular campaigns or incidents when British troops have been in action. These requests have to be considered in the light of the Public

Records Act, 1958, which prescribes the rules and practice about the disclosure of documents.
I see no grounds for preparing an official history or establishing a commission of inquiry.

Mr. Healey: But is the Prime Minister aware that there is deep concern about the statement of Monsieur Pineau that he met the British Foreign Secretary and the Israeli Prime Minister a week before military operations began in Sinai and agreed with him the terms of joint intervention? Would not the Prime Minister agree that he owes it to the House, to his colleagues, and to the country, to deny this report if it is untrue? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister prides himself on talking straight, will he give a straight answer to the Question, did such a meeting take place or not?

The Prime Minister: I have no intention of commenting on statements or rumours. There have been plenty of them over these years. As for the suggestion that my right hon. and learned Friend has in any way done anything dishonourable or misled the House, the Government of the day took certain action, that action was debated in Parliament I do not know how many times, and decided by Parliament, and it was followed by a General Election. I see nothing about which to have an inquiry.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is not there a strong case for putting on historical record all the facts, not only with regard to the military operations which took place, but also with regard to the political events which led up to the opening of the campaign? Is not this essential in view of the doubts and suspicions which undoubtedly exist on this question?

Hon. Members: Where?

The Prime Minister: I think that I have answered the right hon. Gentleman's question. I do not think that there is a case for an inquiry.

Mr. Shinwell: Would not it be of some value to expose all the facts associated with the Suez affair, and to dispose at the same time of some allegations, in particular the allegation of collusion between the Eden Government


and the Israeli Government, which seemed to lay the foundation?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are in the possession of the Israeli Government detailed plans which where prepared by the Egyptian Government before the Israeli Government took the initiative, and which ought to be exposed? Is the Prime Minister aware that I am concerned only with exposing the facts, and that I am not seeking to make an attack on the Eden Government or on anybody else? I leave that to others. I am concerned only with exposing facts.
May I now ask the Prime Minister about my second Question, the one about the Aswan Dam? Is it the case that the British Government were prepared to provide some measure of financial assistance to the Egyptian Government in the construction of the Aswan Dam, but that due to the intervention of Mr. Foster Dulles that assistance was withdrawn, and is not that action largely responsible for the bellicose attitude of the Egyptian Government towards the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I have always known the right hon. Gentleman's views about the Suez incident, and I dare say that I agree with a good many of them. What I am saying is that there is no occasion for an official history of these incidents.

Mr. D. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1916, when the conduct of Ministers was sought to be impugned over the Dardanelles, the Ministers themselves welcomed an inquiry, and the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) actually proposed an enlargement of the terms of reference, although he himself was closely involved? Can the Prime Minister explain the difference between standards of Ministerial conduct then and now?

The Prime Minister: It is not a question of standards of Ministerial conduct; it is a question of certain action taken by the Government of the day, which was debated time and again in Parliament, and in respect of which Parliament took its decision.

Mr. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these allegations of collusion with the Israelis were made several times

in the last Parliament and were denied by the then Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary? Is it not right that we should accept their word, rather than the word of an obscure commentator who is in no way concerned in these matters?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Statement after statement was made by the then Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Secretary of State for Defence. These were debated, and Parliament took its decision, knowing the facts given to it by the Prime Minister of the day.

Mr. H. Wilson: Without going further into these debates, which took a lot of time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the French Foreign Minister of those days can hardly be described as an obscure commentator? Would it not do a great deal to reassure the House if the right hon. Gentleman would just state flatly whether that meeting did or did not take place?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think so. As I said earlier, I do not intend to comment upon rumour or statement. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt notice that Mr. Pineau has refused to comment on the statement which the American commentator, to whom my right hon. and learned Friend was referring, made on television.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has my right hon. Friend studied the conclusions of sources at least at intimately informed as Professor Finer, such as Colonel Meinertzhagen's diary, which state that there could have been no collusion, as has been alleged. Is it not deplorable that the defence spokesman opposite, at a time when our troops are fighting in Aden, should act as a chorus to the Khrushchev-Nasser duet, thus giving countenance to what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said on one occasion to the Daily Sketch, namely, that
there are several people in the Labour Party who are pro-asser?

The Prime Minister: This just illustrates how wise I am to say that I will not comment on any statements that come from any quarter. My hon. Friend has just quoted another statement. I could comment on that, but I shall not


do so. Really, we ought to realise that at the time before Suez there was a danger that the whole of the Middle East would go up in war, and that this war could easily have spread far further afield. Hon. Members will remember the remarks made by the Russian leaders at the time. If we do not realise that the Middle East and everything to do with Israel and the Arab world is inflammable at the moment, and may still spring into flames, we ought to take a little more time to think.

Mr. Grimond: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier—in reply to a supplementary question from behind him—the then Prime Minister told us that certain discussions and conversations took place? [Interruption.] This is on the record. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why refer to it?"] Because it has been denied. Is it not now time that we should be told—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members opposite will allow me to finish what I want to say. I am only trying to do justice to what their own former Prime Minister once said. Will the Prime Minister now tell us a little more about the nature of these conversations, and what conclusion they reached?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman can read the statements made by Sir Anthony Eden—as he then was—when he was Prime Minister. They are in HANSARD. He said that meetings took place, and I have said that I am not commenting on exactly what meetings took place, or who was at them.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SECRETARY (SPEECH)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Bury St. Edmonds on Saturday, 9th May, on foreign affairs represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain something very odd? In his speech the Foreign Secretary said that he did not believe that the cold war was finished, or that things were going to be

easy, yet on 24th April the Prime Minister said that the danger of war with Russia was out, and that this was the greatest fact in the life of every family in Britain. Which of the two was doing the straight talk and which of the two was doing the double talk?

The Prime Minister: If I were to make any comment about something which was odd it might be too personal, so I will refrain from doing so. If the hon. Member will do me the honour of looking at what I have said on these matters, he will see that it has been quite consistent with what the Foreign Secretary has said. I have always said that in my opinion the cold war is beginning to end. That is true. But it has not ended, and it will not end so long as subversion is practised by the Soviet Union. As for the question of nuclear war with Russia, I think that because Russia now understands the superiority of Western nuclear weapons there will not be a nuclear war between Russia and the West.

Oral Answers to Questions — YEMEN

>Q7. Mr. M. Foot: asked the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the supply of aid, including arms, to the Royal Government of the Yemen; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Our policy towards the Yemen is one of non-intervention in the affairs of that country. It is not therefore our policy to supply arms to the Royalists in the Yemen and the Yemen Government have not requested these or other forms of aid.

Mr. M. Foot: I thank the Prime Minister very much for that reply. Will he give us an assurance that there will be no change in that policy, and that no arms whatsoever will be supplied to the Royal Government of the Yemen?

The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Member what is our policy. This policy needs co-operation, and must be reciprocal. As far as the future is concerned, while it is our policy and we intend that it should remain our policy, it must be remembered that the Yemen is filtering people into the Arabian Federation, and this is becoming a very dangerous state of affairs.

Mr. P. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first objective of British policy in this matter must be to try to get Egyptian troops out of the Yemen and to enable that country to enjoy the freedom that we enjoy here, and that to enable us to do that we need to support our friends in the Middle East, and this may mean giving further support, for instance, to Saudi Arabia?

The Prime Minister: These questions are delicate, and the state of the Middle East is so inflammable that I would rather not carry this further today.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important statement. Will he tell the House whether that constitutes a change of policy, and, if so, whether the House may take it that at no time in the last 18 months have British arms been supplied to the Imam's Government?

The Prime Minister: This is our policy, and has been our policy.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the civilian population in the Royalist-held areas are suffering grievous distress from Egyptian bombing, and that they have hardly any—they have some, but hardly any—medical aid? Will Her Majesty's Government consider whether any kind of moral support, at least, could be given to the Red Cross and other bodies which may be able to help?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The International Red Cross is doing very good work in the Yemen, and if it wants some assistance in this work from the United Kingdom Government we shall consider it very sympathetically.

B.B.C. (FILM, "THE OPEN GRAVE")

Sir H. Oakshott: (by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General to use his powers under Section 15(4) of the Licence and Agreement to direct the B.B.C. to refrain from sending the play entitled "The Open Grave" on Sunday next.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): Although I have the power referred to in the Question, it has always

been regarded as a reserve power and it has never at any time been used for this purpose. For reasons which I know the House will appreciate I should be very reluctant to set a precedent which could lead to censorship over certain types of programmes.
My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the Chairman of the Corporation has assured me personally that the "blurb" on this film in the Radio Times is quite misleading and that in Canada, where it was first shown, the protests to which the Radio Times refers were mainly made before the film was shown and not after the showing.
The B.B.C. also feels that the film will not give offence, and, naturally, I hope that this proves to be so.

Sir H. Oakshott: I fully accept my right hon. Friend's very proper reluctance to exercise these special and exceptional powers and I must assume that the notice in the Radio Times is an accurate description of this play. If it is not, it is the fault of the B.B.C.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the play so described will cause deep shock and grave offence to a large number of people? Is it not outrageous that in a civilised Christian country like this the central figure of the Christian faith should be shamed by being likened to a convicted murderer? Is this really the way to provoke thought among some people—by bruising the feelings of so many others?

Mr. Bevins: Naturally I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety and I agree with him that the B.B.C. is responsible for what appears in the Radio Times. But on the main question which I know is in the minds of so many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I think that it would be better to see this programme before making a firm judgment upon it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Senior members of the Corporation who have seen the film do not feel that it will prove to be objectionable. As I say, I very much hope that this will prove to be so.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that no one wishes to see, or at least I do not wish to see, a censorship imposed on B.B.C. or I.T.V., and that I believe that they ought to accept proper


standards? Is he further aware that, in these difficult days, when people who are trying to defend Christian standards are under fire in so many ways, there is an extra obligation on the B.B.C. not further to aggravate the difficulties? Will he ask to see this play before it goes on the air?

Mr. Bevins: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said and I will consider his last question. For the moment, I can only repeat that I well understand the concern over this matter, but it is the case that very often the notes which appear in the broadcasting journals give a very false impression of the effect of a programme.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I fully understand the concern of my right hon. Friend about this matter and his reluctance to exercise these reserve powers. May I point out to him that, however inaccurate may be the description in the Radio Times, the fact remains that this is quite clearly an atrocious parody of the Christian story which is quite unacceptable to anyone of any religious belief?
May I say to my right hon Friend that here he has a great responsibility? Could not he in some way delay the showing of this film? Is he aware that it is no argument to say, "Let us see it first"? It is then too late. Would he look at this matter again and give it further consideration?

Mr. Bevins: All that I can say for the moment is that the B.B.C. is sensitive to what is said in this House and I am quite sure that the new Chairman of the Corporation, Lord Normanbrook, will be equally sensitive—perhaps more so—to what is said here.

Mr. M. Foot: Will the Minister resist the attempt to impose a censorship? Will he also resist the suggestion in the latter part of his reply that we in this House of Commons should turn ourselves into censors? Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that—no doubt properly—a very large amount of time is given by the B.B.C. and I.T.V. to the presentation of religious views, and that, if this play is critical of the Christian faith in some particulars, that would not be a reason

for excluding it from being shown; certainly, it would not be a reason for people who have not seen it to condemn it in advance? Will the Minister stand up for the principle which he enunciated earlier and resist pressure to have a censorship which would destroy free discussion and free speech in this country?

Mr. Bevins: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he has misunderstood the thought in the minds of many of my hon. Friends. May I say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House, that never at any time have I suggested that the House of Commons should become the censor either of the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. That does not mean that either of those two public Corporations ought to be insensitive to Parliamentary or to public opinion.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, I am not in any way criticising what has taken place. I should like to ask, for the guidance of the House in future, since on quite a number of occasions on both B.B.C. and I.T.V. there are television and radio programmes which are offensive—some of them extremely offensive—to sections of opinon in the country, whether, in future, it will be possible to ask Private Notice Questions about particular programmes?
This is a matter of great importance to all hon. Members and to people in the country who hold particular opinions. We have just had attention drawn to a particular programme which is considered—perhaps properly so—to be extremely offensive to certain sections of opinion. There are many occasions on which this has occurred, and will occur.
I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to give some guidance to the House whether this sets a precedent and that it will be possible to ask a Private Notice Question on programmes which are forecast to be shown on television and which are considered to be offensive to particular sections of the community?

Mr. Speaker: I will give very precise guidance. It has never been the custom,


and I should not think it right to make it so, publicly to give reasons for the allowance or disallowance of any Private Notice Question, and that applies to this Question.
With regard to the future, I shall, of course, consider any Private Notice Question submitted in due time in the circumstances which then arise and in relation to the subject.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can you remind us, Mr. Speaker, whether any previous Private Notice Question has been allowed by yourself or your predecessors on a specific programme being broadcast in this country?

Mr. Speaker: Not without reference. I could not do so with regard to a Private Notice Question. With regard to a Question, it has. The Private Notice Question aspect may be affected by the matter of urgency. But I have to consider them all on their merits or demerits in the circumstances when application is made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for the first week after the Whitsun Adjournment?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Whitsun Adjournment will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 2ND JUNE—Finance Bill.

Committee stage.

WEDNESDAY, 3RD JUNE—Second Reading of the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

Second Reading of the Obscene Publications Bill.

THURSDAY, 4TH JUNE—Finance Bill.

Further progress in Committee.

FRIDAY, 5TH JUNE—Private Members' Motions.

Mr. C. Johnson: In view of the great interest that has been aroused by the Report on the extension of accommodation, and as, undoubtedly, when the debate on it takes place a large number of hon. Members may wish to refer to

Reports made by earlier Committees on the question of accommodation, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that all those Reports are now out of print?
Will he use his good offices to see that copies are made available in the House before the debate?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION (CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE)

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I have returned this morning after three days in the South Arabian Federation, where I had extensive discussions about the problems of the area. I also went to see the British and Federal troops who are engaged in restoring peace in the Radfan territory.
On the military side, the main objective, namely, the reopening of the Dhala road, has been achieved. A substantial area to the east, from which the attacks on the road had been directed, is now controlled by British and Federal forces, who occupy dominating mountain positions. The tribesmen have evacuated this area, which includes two of the most fertile valleys in this desolate country. Our forces are at present engaged in consolidating and securing their positions.
We shall shortly be sending an additional battalion to Aden. Two considerations have led us to decide to do this. First, it is our normal practice to maintain one battalion in Aden available for any contingency which may arise east of Suez, and since this battalion has now been allocated to the Radfan operations it is necessary to replace it. Secondly, an additional battalion will enable units employed in these operations to be brought out for rest at adequate intervals. The climate and nature of the country make this essential.
Our troops and airmen have undoubtedly done a magnificent job under extremely strenuous conditions; and all whom I met in the mountains were in very good heart. During my tour I


visited a battalion of the Federal Army, which is holding important positions. The Arab units are playing their full part in the operations, and I was glad to observe the close and effective cooperation which exists between our forces.
During my visit I had valuable discussions with Federal and Aden Ministers and with delegations representing the opposition parties, the Aden Trades Union Congress and other sections of opinion in Aden. All emphasised their desire to see South Arabia advance towards independence, though there were differences among them regarding the timing and the circumstances under which this should be achieved.
I had talks about economic development which must go hand in hand with political progress. Officials from the Treasury and the Colonial Office are at present in the Federation and are examining with the authorities on the spot their development programmes with a view to seeing what further assistance we could provide.
On the political side, my consultation confirmed that there is growing recognition on all sides of the need for contitutional advance.
All were agreed that there would be advantage now in holding the constitutional conference which was to have taken place last winter, but which had to be postponed owing to the bomb incident and the tense situation which followed.
I propose, accordingly, to convene this conference in London in the middle of June. Its purpose will be to discuss the constitutional progress of the Federation towards independence and other related matters. The conference will be composed of Ministers of the Federal Cabinet, Ministers of Aden State and delegates of other State Governments which are not represented in this way.
In the interval before the conference, a meeting will be held in Aden under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State so as to provide all sections of political opinion there the opportunity to express their

views on the special constitutional problems affecting Aden and its relations with the Federation.
It was not to be expected that the union between Aden and the Federation could be accomplished without strains and anxieties. I was, however, encouraged to find that nobody expressed any desire to see Aden separated from the Federation. It now seems generally accepted that the peoples of Aden and of the rest of South Arabia belong together and that the well-being of all depends upon close and effective co-operation.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House wish to express our admiration for the splendid way in which our troops have been behaving in these extraordinarily difficult circumstances? Is he aware that we strongly support his decision to reassemble or call the constitutional conference? Is he aware that this is in conflict with what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said the other day, when he said, "You have to fight first before you have anything to do with politics"? He said it with emphasis and repeated it several times.
Is the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations further aware that we agree with him that fighting and political objectives cannot be separated in this way? They are not separable things and we therefore support his decision. Would he agree, also, that it is extremely important that all representative opinion in the Aden Federation should be present at this conference so that there should be no doubt about whether or not it is representative? We will want to come back to these particular questions in greater detail on a later occasion, no doubt when we are debating foreign affairs.

Mr. Sandys: Although I was not present in the House, as I was away at the time, I did read the HANSARD report of what was said the other day. I think that when the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) rereads it—

Mr. Gordon Walker: I have done so.

Mr. Sandys: If he will re-read it once more, he will see that he has misrepresented what my right hon. Friend said.
With regard to representation at the London conference, I naturally considered whether we could make it an even wider and more representative gathering than it is to be. But I came to the conclusion that, as there are 16 State Governments to be represented, if, in addition, we were to invite representatives of all different shades of opinion in all those different States—and the political parties in Aden would, of course, be some of the more important—it would become an unmanageable gathering, and I do not think that it could do any useful business.

Sir W. Teeling: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether there are still many people in Aden who would like to join up with the Republic of the Yemen?

Mr. Sandys: That was one of the things which struck me during my visit. I was in Aden about 18 months ago. There was then widespread evidence of some enthusiasm for joining up with the Yemeni Republic. But that, so far as I could see, has almost completely evaporated, and even the one party which put on its programme union with the Yemeni Republic has obviously become completely disillusioned.

Mr. Grimond: May I join in what has been said about the conduct of our troops and also say how glad we are to hear that in the view of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what was said by the Secretary of State for Defence has been misrepresented? Certainly, the tone of his answer to questions was totally different from the tone of the statement which has been made this afternoon.
May I ask about the fighting? First, has any progress been made in demarcating the frontier? Until this is done and there is some control over the flow of arms into the Aden Protectorate, does the right hon. Gentleman see any hope of putting an end to the guerrilla warfare, or is it likely to drag on almost indefinitely?

Mr. Sandys: We have for a number of years made it clear, and have repeated it several times recently, that we should be only too glad to take part in the demarcation of the frontier. But it is no good our demarcating it ourselves. To demarcate a frontier one must have both sides taking part and, at the

moment, there is no sign that the Yemeni authorities wish to demarcate the frontier.
As for stopping the further supplies of men and arms to the rebels in the Radfan area, naturally this is a matter very much in our minds. It is not easy in this mountainous territory, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a matter of great importance.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Will my right hon, Friend accept the fact that most of us understood that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence made it clear in his statement that what he meant was that no political advance could take place until the military position had been stabilised? In fact, it is because this has taken place, and is taking place, that the advance which my right hon. Friend has just proposed is possible. Is it not clear that this interpretation was perfectly clear to everyone except the malevolent or the woolly-minded?

Mr. Sandys: I am glad that my hon. Friend has confirmed my reading.

Mr. Monslow: It is true that the Secretary of State for Defence said that the prerequisite was military control before a political solution could be found. He repeated that statement in by-election speeches. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on arranging a political conference which, I hope, will be successful. I also congratulate him on the work which he has done, but I suggest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—Is he not aware that not everyone is so naive as not to know exactly what his right hon. Friend meant when he made that statement?

Mr. Tapsell: Did my right hon. Friend encounter any enthusiasm for political development within the 16 States to be represented at the conference, apart from a movement towards independence under their existing internal constitution?

Mr. Sandys: I did not quite hear my hon. Friend.

Mr. M. Foot: He means, are the sheikhs in favour of democracy?

Mr. Sandys: I am glad that the hon. Member puts it that way. I said in my statement that I found that there was


a general recognition that political advance was necessary. Of course, different emphasis is placed upon it in different quarters, but undoubtedly there is a growing recognition that South Arabia must move with the rest of the world.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers a political solution desirable? Is he aware that the Minister of Defence, when he was asked recently by the Leader of the Liberal Party and myself to consider a political solution, described it as "waffle"? May I ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he agrees with that?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know what is meant by a political solution. What I am talking about is a conference to discuss further political progress. That is not a solution to the fighting in the Radfan area. No conference such as we are to have in London, believe me, will make the slightest difference to the attitude of the tribesmen in this area, who have not been administered for as long as anybody can remember, and who will not read or hear anything about a conference except what they hear on the radio from Cairo.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter without a Question before the House.

NORWEGIAN CONSTITUTION (150th ANNIVERSARY)

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House. As hon. Members will know, the Members of the Norwegian Storting and of the Scandinavian Parliaments are meeting on 18th May at Eidsvoll to celebrate the 150th anniversary of 17th May, 1814, of the proclamation of the Norwegian Constitution.
In view of the cordial relations which have always existed between this House and the Storting, I feel that I should be carrying out the wishes of my fellow Members were I, without seeking formal authority from the House, to send on that occasion a message of congratulations and good wishes to the President of the Storting. That I will do if the proposal has the approval of hon. Members.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

BILL PRESENTED

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS (REGISTRATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS)

Bill to make compulsory the registration of change of address in civil proceedings in England and Wales where a judgment has been made by a court until such judgment is satisfied or until the court otherwise directs, presented by Dr. Alan Glyn; supported by Mr. David Renton, Mr. William Rootes, and Mr. Elwyn Jones; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th June, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 2nd June.—[The Prime Minister.]

3.56 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: If one could have believed one's ears during the last half-hour one would have imagined that the Middle East is in an inflamed condition and that any hopes of peace and understanding in that area depend upon the action of the Government. I do not think that the House should go away for the Whitsun Recess before an effort is made to restore a reasonable air of objectivitiy.
The Prime Minister told us about the inflamed condition in the Middle East. What he did not tell us was the special contribution which he has made in the last few months to inflame passions in the Middle East. On 11th February of this year he was engaged in a broadcast in Canada and, speaking of the Suez operation, he said, "I rather wish they"—that is, the Americans—"had allowed us to deal with the Egyptian one as we had wanted to". In other words, the Prime Minister greatly regrets, as did Sir Anthony Eden at that time, that the Conservative Government of that day were not allowed to wreak their will in the Middle East.
We should reflect for a moment, before we go for our Whitsun holidays, what is the atmosphere in the Middle East at this moment, while I am speaking. Mr. Khrushchev and President Nasser, with the heads of 33 countries in Africa, are assembled at the Aswan Dam and there a button will be pressed not to explode a bomb but to divert the Nile. Egypt, from now on, will control the head waters of the Nile. Large areas will be fertilised. This atmosphere of hope to countless millions of people is being brought about not by the action of the Government, not by intervention in Suez, not by intervention in the Yemen, but as a result of the action of Mr. Khrushchev.
In my judgment, it is a nice juxtaposition. On the one hand, there is the Prime Minister's statement that he wished that he had been allowed to get on with the job in 1956, and, on the

other, there is Mr. Khrushchev as the bringer of life and hope. This is the juxtaposition between Communism, on the one hand, and Western democracy, on the other.
In my judgment what is happening at Aswan today is the greatest diplomatic defeat which the West has suffered since the end of the war. This can be traced directly to the Suez intervention. It is my view, and has been my view all along, that there should be an inquiry and that the House should not depart for the Recess until it has authorised the setting up of an inquiry along the lines of the Dardanelles inquiry; that is, that there should be an inquiry into the inception of the operation, how the operation was carried out and what the consequences are.
The point has been made during the last week and has attracted some attention in the House to the subject of collusion. Much has been said about Professor Finer's book. I am one of those who try to deal with the facts, so I have obtained the book. I hope that no other hon. Gentleman will spend any money on reading it, because for the purpose of a more detailed understanding of what happened in Suez it is largely useless. The dates are not right, it ennobles Mr. Randolph Churchill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question to which the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Gentlemen desiring to speak must address their observations is
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 2nd June.
The hon. Member is quite in order in saying that we ought to set up an inquiry into the topic before we go away, but we cannot proceed to read books about it now.

Mr. Wigg: On the contrary, you must have heard me imperfectly, Mr. Speaker. I said that I had read the book, and not that we should read the book.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was entering into a critique of the book, observing that the dates were inaccurate in it, and so on, and that is not on the Question which is now before us.

Mr. Wigg: My ability to express myself must be getting worse, because I said exactly the opposite.
I said that they were not important. The dates produced by Professor Finer and produced in subsequent commentaries are quite useless. The book, in my judgment, is worthless. What is important is not the date of the meeting. Indeed, I can tell the Leader of the House what he did on the 23rd October, on the date when he was supposed to have had that meeting. [An HON. MEMBER: "The 24th."] Professor Finer mentioned both. On 23rd October the Leader of the House was answering Questions, and at ten o'clock that night he dined and subsequently the Prime Minister came along, and it may well be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman went to France the next day.
On the issue of collusion, I have made myself plain on previous occasions and I wrote a letter to The Times, following a statement made by the Leader of the House at the United Nations. My case for an inquiry is not that the Government inspired or instigated the Suez operation. These right hon. Gentlemen were never villains. They have not the ability or the energy to be villains. At most, they were synthetic villains. The collusion was between M. Pineau and Ben Gurion, but the Government were parties to the operation. That removed from them any shred of personal honour and removed any shred of honour from any Conservative Administration, because they delivered an ultimatum demanding the stopping of a fire which they knew was to start. It was the guilty knowledge that they possessed.
I want to help the Leader of the House by quoting him once again, as did in 1956, in a letter in The Times, and again at the end of 1958. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will do me the honour of reading the letter in The Times on 27th November, 1956, he will see that I specifically cleared him of collusion to the extent of acquitting him of any share of the instigation of the operation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must remember the Question to which he has to speak. This is the second warning to him. I hope that he will pay attention to it. It really matters, otherwise discussion on this Question gets all over the place on each occasion, and it must not. It is quite all right to

say, "I want an inquiry before we go away", but not to discuss on this occasion all the arguments which the hon. Gentleman might wish to put before the inquiry. That is out of order.

Mr. Wigg: I have had some rehearsals of this, Sir. I made a similar speech on 20th December, 1956. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tedious repetition."] No, something has happened since then. I am aware that I must not go into detail, but I am entitled to say, in addition to the arguments which I put on that occasion and I do not repeat them, that there has been written Mr. Randolph Churchill's book which makes specific and much more detailed charges than were ever made by Professor Finer, and then there is Professor Finer himself. There is no shadow of doubt that outside this country it is believed and taken for granted that there was guilty and prior knowledge in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, but not collusion.
I do not want to trepass on your kindness, Mr. Speaker. Let us move on from 20th December, 1956, to another quite extraordinary happening. My case is that there ought to be an inquiry and that the House should not depart until there has been an inquiry into the inception of the operation, not about the conduct of the operation itself. General Keightley presented his dispatches. One would have thought the Government would have been so proud of what happened that they would have brought the dispatches to the House and we would have had a debate, but never, from the time when the dispatches were published in 1957 down to the present day, have they ever been considered by the House. Why not? For the very simple reason that the Government do not want this particular skeleton to be disinterred, because they are afraid of the truth.
Again, I do not want to bore the House, and whether I succeed in doing so is neither here nor there. What has to be done is to relate what happened at Suez and the need for an inquiry to what has happened in Aden at present. Let us have a look at the announcements which have been made by right hon. Gentlemen in connection with the Aden operation. Quite the most remarkable thing was the statement by the Prime


Minister on 4th May. He was asked a Private Notice Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and he replied:
These operations are essentially of an internal security nature, taking place wholly within the frontiers of the South Arabian Federation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May. 1964; vol. 694; c. 908.]
I should have thought—and this, again, is a subject for inquiry as to why he did not say it—that if, in an internal security operation, he contemplated the use of major weapons he should have said so. But he did not breathe a word about that. It was not until several days later that we got a statement, on 11th of May, when the Secretary of State for Defence, talking about the bombs, said that authority was given for this operation generally and he thought that it was perfectly normal in that context for the bombs to be used.

Mr. Paul Williams: On a point of order. There are many of us, I suspect, on both sides of the House who, given a suitable occasion, could debate Suez again and the responsibility or otherwise in different parts of the House, and what is happening in Aden as well. In view of the way in which the debate is beginning to develop, are we to understand that we shall be able to go into these issues through the hours of the night?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. I have warned the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) twice. First of all, he said that we ought to have an inquiry into the Suez history and, without touching on the detail, I gave him my Ruling about that. Now the hon. Member says that we ought to have an inquiry into something connected with Aden. He should make the point "that in view of inconsistencies between statements", or something of that kind, without going into detail, which is entirely out of order.

Mr. Wigg: I am endeavouring to do that, Sir. I say, first, that there should be an inquiry into the inception of the Suez operation and the manner in which it was carried on. I did not go into the details of the Suez operation. Hon. Members can read the details themselves, but I pointed out that the dispatches were never debated. I am now going into the situation which confronts the whole country, and not only the Con-

servative Party, and everybody knows about it except us. We are the only ones who have our heads in the sands about what is happening. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, the Opposition."] It is only the Conservative Party which has its head in the sands about the reality of the situation; but I will come to that.
I am here dealing with what has happened in Aden. Here is an operation which was planned, we are told, for security reasons. The Minister then says that bombs could be used, that this was a general instruction. I do not dissent from that view, because, if one gives a commander in the field a job to do, one should let him get on with it with what arms he has.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman does not approach the rules of order. I wish that he would apply his mind to this, because it matters. He is quite entitled to say that, before we go away—if that is his reason—there should be some inquiry about Aden, but he is not entitled to develop here and now the matters which he would wish to develop before the inquiry, if it were set up.

Mr. Wigg: I am carefully refraining from mentioning the matters which I should wish to put before the inquiry, Sir. What I am arguing is that there is need for an inquiry on the ground that the House has not been given the facts. It has been, misled. No mention was made of the use of heavy weapons, although, if Shackletons were provided, there was no reason why they should not have been used. But we had to wait until last Monday before an announcement was made that a considerable number of 1,000-1b. bombs had been used.
Then we had the Prime Minister making a speech that night all round the Scottish constituencies, and my view about that is that the purpose of these bombs, or the release of the information a week later, had got nothing to do with the military situation but had got the hell of a lot to do with the political situation in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is my view.
From a military point of view, the dropping of 1000-1b. bombs on Radfani in that part of the world made a bang, made a lot of noise, but what hon. Members opposite have never really faced is the effect of Suez and of Aden.


This is the case for an inquiry. The effect of Suez and of Aden upon the British public is traumatic. It comes by way of a shock, and afterwards, after the immediate shock has worn off, the Chauvenistic feelings which are in all of us just below the surface present a political bonus to them. They are welcome to reap it, but, in the long run, when the shock wears off and the truth cannot be denied, my case for an inquiry will be proved by the facts to have been overwhelming. But, unfortunately, the case for an inquiry then will be too late.
What is the situation in Aden today as a result of what happened at Suez and the way the operation was planned and carried out? The Suez Canal is being operated today better than it was ever operated in the past, and not one British pilot is there. This is what has happened. The Aswan Dam, which we tried to stop, is being completed. Britain now finds herself in an isolated position. She alone is backing the Imam. The United States has recognised the Yemen. Mr. Khrushchev recognises the Yemen. Within a very few weeks, in Cairo once again, Prince Feisal will go—

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the United States recognised the Republic of the Yemen on condition that all non-Yemeni forces should be withdrawn from the Yemen?

Mr. Wigg: Again, an hon. Member tries to draw me into a discussion of the facts. You have allowed the question, Mr. Speaker, but if I attempt to answer it, and discuss the details, I shall be out of order. Therefore, only for that reason, I do not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If Mr. Speaker will allow me, I shall willingly go into the subject.

Mr. Speaker: No. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to pursue even the course which he is pursuing. With great respect to him, I think that he is quite capable of stating, without entering into so much detail, whatever reason he wishes to advance for the House not adjourning until some step has been taken, which he has rather vaguely described, if I may say so, as an inquiry.

Mr. Wigg: An additional reason why I want the House to stay in session and have this inquiry so that it can inform

itself and public opinion is that, before the house reassembles, Prince Feisal will have gone to Cairo. Until recently, Prince Feisal was backing the Imam. Now he has changed his front. So, as a result of the Government's so-called strong-arm policy, we have lost the Suez Canal, we have conceded to Russia the influence—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will think for the moment, he will realise that he is there expressing a series of conclusions or opinions of his own—I am not saying whether they are right or wrong—which do not, in fact, add up to an additional reason for the House staying in session instead of going away on the date proposed.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us may want to take part in the debate later, with your approval, Sir, and it is as well, if there are misunderstandings, that they should be cleared away early.
If I may say so, I understand very well what you are saying to the House, that one can give as a reason for not accepting the Government's Motion that one wants an inquiry, and I understand, further, that one may not go into all the matters which might come out in the course of such an inquiry.
But would it not be right to say that one could not merely baldly say, "I want an inquiry", without giving the House any explanation of what it is one wants the inquiry about, what there is to inquire into, and what is the importance of the matter which requires that the House should not adjourn until an inquiry has been decided upon?
I know that it is a difficult line to keep, but it would, surely, be quite wrong to keep it only by not giving any explanation at all of why one wants an inquiry and what it should be about.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows all about this, and so do I. The only difference between us is in what is merely bald and what is something a little less bald. I can only exercise common sense about it, and we had better keep to the rules.

Mr. Wigg: I am only exercising common sense about it, Mr. Speaker, but I took the precaution of reading


the previous debates. When this one is over, I shall study with enjoyment and mental refreshment the scope which was allowed to the Prime Minister on 20th December, 1956. But, of course, I understand that there have been changes, there is a new Speaker, and, of course, it depends on the attitude—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I shall withdraw nothing.
My hon. Friend has put the case very fairly and he is quite right. I am well within order in arguing that there should be an inquiry, and I should be allowed to give the reasons why there should be an inquiry. What I am not allowed to do, and what I have not attempted to do, is to go into too much detail, or into detail at all. However, I am allowed to argue the broad case for having an inquiry. Sir Anthony Eden was allowed, with great latitude, to argue why there should not be an inquiry—and he got to the point of throwing his pencil down and saying that he would do it all over again, which is what the Prime Minister has done now. However, I do not press that point.
What I say is that there was prior and guilty knowledge in the minds of right hon. Gentlemen. The operation was carried out with great gallantry. The planning was competent. But it failed. Consequences flow from that failure. Today, Britain has no influence in the Middle East. The Suez Canal is now running better, and Britain is excluded from its running. The Aswan Dam is being built. Although the first barrage was built by British genius and the plans for the dam were born in British minds, Britain is not there.
As regards Aden, we live in a dream world. There are meeting in Cairo the heads of the Arab States. Prince Feisal and King Hussein have come over to the Egyptian side. Britain now stands completely isolated, isolated from the Soviet Union, isolated from the United States, isolated from China, isolated from all her friends.
A price has got to be paid. The price will not be paid by that lot. The price will be paid by Britain. The dishonour which exists in the ranks of the Conservative Party is shared by all Britain, and the only possible chance we have of working our passage and once again standing for some of the things which

we have stood for in the past is by coming clean and admitting where we went wrong.
I hope that I shall be in order in saying this. I know the Middle East fairly well. I have known it through the hard way, in the humblest of rôles. I have been going back and forth for 40 years. I was back there recently. One of the things that astonishes me, after all that has happened, is the tremendous friendship there is for the British people. I have walked round parts of Cairo which were out of bounds during all the years of service that I spent there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say again that I have visited parts of Cairo recently that were out of bounds to British troops during all my service. I never before went into the Sultan Hassan Mosque. Now I have been into the Sultan Hassan Mosque, and I have been from Alexandria down to Abu Simbel. I have found on occasion after occasion that there is the most tremendous affection for the British people and a willingness to draw a distinction between what Britain stands for and what successive Conservative Governments have done.
This is the truth. That is why I am here today. I cannot understand why hon. Members have not a feeling of shame that at this moment there is, on the one hand, the diversion of the Nile—one of the most imaginative and gigantic operations ever carried out in the history of man—and, on the other, the dropping of 1,000-1b. bombs. Right throughout Africa and Asia there is not such a juxtaposition—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot be imagining that he can make this speech on this Question and keep within the rules of order. I cannot believe that he can be thinking so.

Mr. Wigg: All I am doing, Sir, is arguing the general proposition that the House should not go away until there has been an objective inquiry into what has happened in the past eight years, so that the House of Commons and the British people shall come to an objective understanding of the situation in the Middle East at the present time. Surely, Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to point out that the Prime Minister said this afternoon that the Middle East is inflamed.


The Prime Minister will not give us information, he says. Yet he is the man who has inflamed it. Surely we have a duty to say that we must have the facts. The House of Commons has a right to demand the facts. The facts are not given. An illusion is built up, an atmosphere of crisis, for partisan political purposes, but basically to conceal the truth.
Hon. Members opposite have no contribution to make. They have no part to play. If they remain in power, Britain will certainly be excluded once and for all from the affairs of the Middle East. Even if there was no other reason, I am confident for this reason that one thing that this country needs urgently is a new Administration. [HON. MEMBERS: "What has that got to do with the Question?"] An inquiry is necessary to understand the facts—not the details, but the broad outline of the facts. It should be understood that we on this side of the House—and I include the Liberal Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I include the Liberal Party. All through its long history it has believed in the rule of law.

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your guidance on the problem that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is raising? Is it in order for an hon. Member to ask for an inquiry into something that happened seven or eight years ago, when there has been plenty of opportunity to ask for such an inquiry in the past, and when such an inquiry could be asked for after the Recess? Is this any reason for taking up the whole of the time in the debate on whether we should adjourn for the Whitsun Recess? If this is in order, I want to call for an inquiry into a much more important occasion affecting the life of the people of this country—

Mr. Speaker: The position is quite plain to the House. An hon. Member may ask for something to be done which would necessitate non-compliance with the proposal that we should adjourn for Whitsuntide as set out in the Motion. Having indicated his reason for that, an hon. Member has then exhausted legitimate argument in support of opposing the Motion. One cannot go

wandering round the streets of Cairo to find out the sentiments there. That is too wide. I think that the House understands the principle. It is a matter of degree. I very much dislike having to interfere so much, but it nearly always happens on this Question. I think that we must confine ourselves to the Question before the House.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, I am foremost in supporting the Chair. To do that, Sir, it is imperative that one should understand the Chair's Ruling. I very diligently followed the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). I failed to hear him mention anything about "wandering round the streets of Cairo". I wonder, Sir, if you would be kind enough to connect your Ruling—

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will explain to the hon. Member. I am only asking him to assist me by complying with what he knows full well are the rules of order. When the hon. Gentleman was talking about the many instances of pro-British sentiment which still remain, I thought that the instances were so multiplied that he went rather over the line. I have stopped the hon. Gentleman so much already that I do not wish to go on stopping him.

Mr. Wigg: A point of order was raised by the hon. Member for Ormskirk. As I understand it, in replying to the hon. Gentleman you, Sir, in your capacity as Speaker, animadverted on the speech I was making. I am the first to comply with the Rulings of the Chair, provided that the Rulings are based upon precedent and on the rules of order. I respectfully put it to you, Sir, that the Chair is confined to giving Rulings on points of order and not expressions of opinion on the speeches of hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not imagine some wholly unintended discourtesy. I was asked to answer, in effect—I do not purport to quote the words—as to where the line is. That is all we have been talking about on these interventions. I thought that I had an instance in the hon. Gentleman's speech which illustrated where the line was not. That is all. I think that we


understand. When an hon. Member goes into too much detail and begins to discuss the substantive matter which might be investigated by the inquiry, he goes beyond giving reasons for asking for an inquiry before we go away for the Recess.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed to know that we both agree that we both understand. I do.
The case I was making was that there is a need for an inquiry. I shall not traverse the ground again. To my mind, the case for an inquiry is overwhelming. It is overwhelming in relation to Suez. As to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ormskirk that a demand for an inquiry into this operation has been made before, I agree that it has. I have made it. I have asked that the Keightley Dispatches be debated. As long as I am a Member of the House, I shall go on doing that. I shall go on demanding this.
In the long run, the truth about the Suez operation will come out. Even though I did make this demand in 1956 and 1958 and even if that were an argument against me, since that time we have had Mr. Randolph Churchill's books. We have had publication after publication, until the point has been reached when the truth has penetrated and percolated into every elective assembly in the world. There is not a country in the world which does not know the truth about this operation, save only this House of Commons.
The truth is that, whenever a conflict arises between patriotism, between the interests of Great Britain, and the class interests of the party of hon. Members opposite, their class interests always win.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham) rose—

Mr. Wigg: No, I shall not give way.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Wigg: I shall give way when I am ready.
The Tory Party's class interests always win. That is what has happened here. This is another argument for an inquiry. It is common talk amongst accredited journalists of high reputation in London—they have been saying it for weeks—

that the only hope the Tories have of winning the General Election is to frame a crisis—have a crisis, they say; beat the band wagon; wave the Union Jack. That is the only chance they have, never mind the interests of Britain. That is what they are after.

Mr. Awdry: I have been in the House for about one and a half years. I have heard the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) make a great many speeches. They have all been equally unpleasant. The hon. Gentleman makes the foullest accusations against my hon. Friends. May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question before he leaves the question of Aden? He purports to be a friend of British soldiers. Does he think that soldiers in this very dangerous position should go into action without adequate air support?

Mr. Wigg: If I am asked a question, of course I go on. If the hon. Gentleman had listened he would have known that that is exactly what I said. I said that if, on 4th May, the Prime Minister had said, "I have told them to use Shackletons. I have told them to use 1,000-1b. bombs", I would have agreed. The hon. Gentleman is not really complaining about me making foul accusations. What he is worried about is that my foul accusations will prove to be true. That is the charge against me. What about Ferranti? I will not mention other names, but I could. Even on this issue I could give some. There is a great deal more yet to come out about what has happened in Aden.
I have one point to make for an inquiry. Consider the case of Colonel MacWilliam, who occupied a star post in the Army. He was G.S.O.1. He was expecting a senior appointment, was right to expect it and, in fact, got it. He was appointed to the Arab Federation forces. He went out there for three weeks and came straight back again. So that I should not repeat any foul accusations without first making an attempt to be sure of my facts, I went to the Minister to find out what happened to Colonel MacWilliam, but he would not discuss the matter with me.
Why did Colonel MacWilliam come back? The answer is that when he got there he found certain things which made him come back. Hon. Members


opposite can link this with the statement made by the Prime Minister on 4th May, when the right hon. Gentleman said that this was an internal security operation carried out to suppress the insurgents. When Colonel Mac William got to Aden and took charge of the Arabian Federation forces he found chaos in the transport and administrative services. He found himself being asked to undertake, for political reasons, a degree of Arabisation. Being an honourable and straightforward man, he refused to accept responsibility for what he found and came home.
As a result, therefore, British troops, for whom hon Members opposite are so concerned, are forced to go in to do the dirty work which the incompetence of Ministers on the Government Front Bench has imposed on them. [HON. MEMBERS: "oh."] These facts may be intolerable to hon. Members opposite, but this is why we need an inquiry. The facts must be gone into. At every point where one touches the problem of defence, the formula one gets is maximum expenditure and minimum results. All that hon. Members opposite can say is that we can reflect on the gallantry of British troops.
We are told that the Radfanis retired. A few bangs and they are gone, we are told, but is it not obvious that as soon as the instruments which are causing the bangs have gone they will return; that is, when it suits them? The Minister was right to say that we are dealing with an impossible situation. This is not something out of the middle ages. This is a country which is based on pre-history—a tribal system of the most remote kind. To imagine that Britain, on her own, can keep the Stone Age in existence in defiance of world opinion is complete nonsense.
Today, I have had a stormy passage, although I have rather enjoyed it. The day is warm and to those who object to what I have said, and who disagree with me, I say, "We shall see". As I said at the time of Suez—and even before then—when I heard the demand from Conservative hon. Members for strong action I had an uncontrollable desire to go out and be sick. Strong action indeed; sending battalions out

well below establishment and using Shackletons to drop 1,000-1b. bombs on Radfanis who had hopped it, anyway.
How impressive it all was, hon. Members opposite may think. How impressed the Kremlin must have been at our using Shackletons or even Hunters. I want our troops to go in with modern equipment. It impresses no one but oneself to use the sort of weapons we use in these circumstances. I want our troops to have up-to-date equipment, our units to be at full strength and, above all, I want the Government to be honest. At present, we have none of these things and, because of this, I want an inquiry.
It is important that we should have that inquiry, but the importance of it will become absolutely certain before this year is out. I predict that. The consequences of the lying and humbug which has beset us these last eight years will be so great and will weigh so heavy in evidence in favour of such an inquiry that even the most dyed-in-the-wool Tory will not be able to deny the truth.

4.35 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: I do not wish to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in certain of his unpalatable statements. I oppose the adjournment of the House for different reasons. I do not say that we should not adjourn tomorrow, just that we should come back earlier. I am proposing that instead of adjourning until 2nd June we should adjourn until Wednesday, 20th May. People in factories will have the long weekend and will start work again on Wednesday. I suggest that the House of Commons should do the same. I suggest this for several reasons and I hope that hon. Members opposite will hear me patiently, even if I must say some things which they will not altogether like.
I agree that there are many urgent problems of national importance which should be probed and debated, and I am prepared to go into the Lobby if necessary with hon. Members opposite to see that we have a shorter Recess, as long as the problems I wish to raise are discussed.
The party opposite assume that by the end of October they will be the Government of this country. The public opinion


polls and by-election results would appear to give fair proof that their assumption is well grounded, but lots of things can happen in five months. They were certain in 1959 that they would win the General Election, but they were disappointed. Assuming that they will gain power, I do not believe that hon. Members opposite would want to have the responsibilities of governing Britain thrust on their shoulders without explaining fully and in every detail what they propose to do with the power they think is coming to them. Therefore, instead of adjourning until 2nd June I want Parliament to return earlier; and I have eight good days' work to suggest we might undertake.
The first problem hon. Members could usefully discuss is that of automation. With courage, the Leader of the Opposition has on more than one occasion warned his followers, both in the trade union movement and at his party conferences, that in his opinion there will be 10 million jobs lost as a result of automation in the next decade. We must debate what arrangements he thinks he is capable of making with the trade union world as a result of automation, the jobs lost and—

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. We discuss the adjournment of the House, the question of Ministerial responsibility and why we think a shorter time should be allotted for a Recess. Since the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is developing his argument along certain lines I must intervene quickly to ask you to give a Ruling on how far it is permissible to argue that the House should return earlier to enable the Opposition to explain what they will do in a hypothetical situation after the next election. As hon. Members opposite will be aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have at least a nodding acquaintance with the Standing Orders of the House. This is a serious point and I am asking you to rule on it before the hon. Member for Louth develops his argument further, bearing in mind the rather tight line which Mr. Speaker sought to lay upon the House just prior to your assuming the occupancy of the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Further to that point of order. From my recollection of past Rulings, has it not

previously been ruled out of order, when discussing this sort of Motion, to discuss reassembling at an earlier date?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): If I may, I will read to the House the Motion we are debating. The Question is:
That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 2nd June.
It would seem to me quite in order to argue, as the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is doing, that although he would agree with the House rising tomorrow, we should, for certain reasons, reassemble before 2nd June. That is how I took his speech and so long as he devotes himself to that argument, I believe him to be in order.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I must ask you to deal with the substance of my submission.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With respect to the hon. Member, I thought that the argument of the hon. Member who has the Floor was being devoted to this House having an opportunity before 2nd June of debating certain things. So far as he keeps his argument close to that and does not stray too far into details of the certain things, I believe him to be in order.

Mr. William Warbey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend raised the question of Ministerial responsibility. Nobody is suggesting that we should not discuss things that might be discussed if we came back earlier; but, surely, since this is a Government Motion, virtually arranging Government business time, we must be confined to discussing the kind of subjects which would be introduced by the Government if we came back earlier.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I think that the hon. Member would be mistaken. It might well be that if the House were to come back earlier, Supply days would be put down and Opposition business could be taken.

Sir C. Osborne: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am rather surprised, because I was trying to state my case moderately, that the Opposition should be so touchy.


[Interruption.] Whether they like it or not, if it takes me two hours they are going to have it. I was saying that the greatest problem facing this country economically, as the Leader of the Opposition has said and told his supporters, is the economic consequences of automation. The Leader of the Opposition has said that, in his opinion, in the next decade, 10 million jobs will be lost. I want the House to come back earlier to discuss this problem. To give the House some idea of the immensity of this problem, I shall give one example only. At the moment, in the Jaguar motor works at Coventry 3,000 men are out on unofficial strike because one man alone has been redeployed owing to automation. There is no denying that it is a well-run factory, that the men are well paid, and that it is doing an excellent job in exports. This is inter-union rivalry and, over one man, 3,000 men are out of work and our exports are in danger.
The reason that I want the House to come back earlier is that if hon. Members opposite take office they will have to face these problems, and surely they ought to tell the country what they propose to do. Do they think that they can get agreement with their industrial wing to deal with the consequences of automation which will drive out 10 million men from their jobs, or is their election cry going to be, "Vote Labour and vote yourself out of a job"?
The second problem which I should like the House to come back earlier to deal with is that of immigration, which is very closely allied to the consequences of automation. The Home Secretary told us the other day that 300,000 people in India and Pakistan are waiting in the queue to come to this country. They are jobless, penniless and skill-less. If 10 million of our own people are to be out of jobs because of automation, are we to allow millions more to come in to swell that crowd? Is that their policy?

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have no objection to this debate on this Motion becoming a free-for-all, provided that it is really a free-for-all. I am sure that we on this side of the House would be quite as happy as some hon. Members opposite to engage in this free-for-all. But Mr.

Speaker has ruled that there are certain restrictions on this debate, and since those Rulings bear upon this side, I would submit that they apply to the other side as well. I would suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that since the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is opposing the Motion and, therefore, is, in effect, attacking the Government, because this is a Government Motion which we are debating, hon. Members opposing the Motion must seek a reply from a Member of the Government, and must therefore address their questions to a Member of the Government and not to the Opposition.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is quite correct in saying that this debate should be restricted. So far as I have heard the hon. Member for Louth, he raised two subjects which he thought should be discussed rather than have the House in recess during the days that are proposed from tomorrow to 2nd June. So far, I thought that that was in order.

Mr. George Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understood the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) to be going further than that, by saying that if we came back earlier we could not only discuss these very important subjects—which so far we have not—but that we could have answers from the Opposition in place of those which we are not getting from the Government. I find that a very attractive argument and I should like to hear more of it.

Sir C. Osborne: I hope that by the time that I have finished my eight points the right hon. Gentleman will like the whole lot. I was saying that the Home Secretary said that there were 300,000 people in the queue in India alone waiting to come here, and each is entitled to bring on average 10 dependants. That makes 3 million to add to the 10 million whom the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says will be unemployed because of automation. Hon. Members opposite are pledged to repeal the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I and the country want to know: is that what they are going to do? Are they going to flood this country with immigrants by opening the flood gates, and if so, what will be the effect on unemployment in this country? I think


that is not an unreasonable request to put to them. On the third day, if we come back earlier, I want to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has to say—not from those below the Gangway, if I may say so with respect—on the problem of unofficial strikes. There are three or four unofficial strikes taking place at the present time. These unofficial strikes are clearly against the national interest. They reduce production, injure our exports, stop wages—and they infuriate the workers' wives. Furthermore, and this should appeal to hon. Members opposite, they undermine the authority of the trade union leaders.
I should like a day to discuss that subject, and hear what hon. Members opposite have to say on it. I was in this House in 1948 when the then Mr. Attlee used the troops to break an unofficial strike in the London Docks and bring the food from the London Docks to the London people. We are entitled to ask: would the Wilson Government take the same action as the Attlee Government did—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think that the using of names of hon. or right hon. Members of this House is a good plan.

Sir C. Osborne: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I will leave that subject.
I object to our going away and staying away while these grave problems remain unsolved. Before giving their votes the people are entitled to know what the Opposition would offer as a solution.
One of the most disturbing problems facing us overseas is the problem of the white settler in Southern Rhodesia. That is a very difficult subject, and we could well spend a day discussing it. Those with friends or relatives out there know how sore they feel. What would the position be, assuming that the party opposite were in power in October—

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I have your Ruling on this point? The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is putting a number of questions to which there will be a reply at the end of the debate. Do I take it that hon. Members on this side will be entitled to reply to those questions, or are we to be placed in a position in which the reply to those questions

is given, on behalf of the Opposition, by the Minister?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members on all sides of the House have complete liberty to endeavour to catch the eye of the Chair to debate this question before us. That is the position.

Sir C. Osborne: Oliver Cromwell once said of his weaker opponents that they had too tender consciences; heaven knows what he would say about hon. Members opposite if he were here today.
Assuming that the Labour Party wins the next election, would a Labour Government compel the white settlers in Rhodesia immediately to surrender to a black majority? It is terribly important that the people should know. Or would that Government give the settlers 10 years or 20 years to get used to the change? This is what our friends out there are asking, and the matter should be debated. Would a Labour Government use British troops to force the white settlers to accept a black-majority rule. The people there would like an answer to that, and so would the public here, before they cast their votes. Would that Labour Government risk driving Southern Rhodesia into the arms of South Africa? I should like to debate that instead of having hon. Members wasting a day in the South of Spain—

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: As it has apparently become necessary for the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party, would not my hon. Friend agree that a day should be given to that party for its members to state their own case?

Sir C. Osborne: I do not wish to keep the House too long, and I have three other points that I want to put.
As an exporter, I am concerned with the position of South Africa. Last year, our exports to South Africa were worth £196 million and our imports were valued at £114 million. We sell the South Africans £80 million a year more than we buy from them. What the workers who produce the goods we sell, and whose jobs depend on those exports, want to know from the Labour leaders is whether they are prepared to impose a total economic boycott? Are they prepared to throw that trade away?
If so, what is to be the effect upon the employment of the people who produce the goods the South Africans so readily buy from us? That is quite apart from their attitude to the Simonstown base.
Another of the days saved I should like devoted to a further matter. The country was surprised and his own supporters were terribly shocked a few days ago when the Leader of the Opposition advocated a new jingoistic policy in Cyprus. He said that instead of the U.N. "softee-softee, pussy-pussy", policy we should send in real tanks and live ammunition. If this is the new Labour Party policy, would it not need the use of further ground troops, and would it not necessitate conscription? Would the Labour Party bring in conscription, as it did before?
If I could have my way, my next day would be usefully employed in debating taxation—something of which I know a little. In the Budget debate, the "shadow" Chancellor said that he wanted less indirect taxation and more direct taxation. Let me remind hon. Members what direct taxation really means. The standard rate of Income Tax is now 7s. 9d. in the £—under the Socialists it was 9s. 6d. We are entitled to ask hon. Members opposite whether, if they were in power, they would put the rate back to 9s. 6d.
Under this same heading my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a very bold move and lifted the earned income before Surtax from £2,000 to £5,000. That step was bitterly opposed on the opposite side of the House. Would hon. Members opposite reduce the figure to £2,000 again?

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What the hon. Member is dealing with now must surely be out of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The House has just had an opportunity, on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, of discussing these very matters.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), it is that he wants the House to reassemble early in order to hear the views of hon. Mem-

bers on the Opposition side. It may be a surprising argument, but I think that it is in order to put it forward

Sir C. Osborne: I could not have stated my case better myself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
On this Surtax question, it is complained that many of our top scientists and executives are leaving this county for the United States for higher salaries. If we brought the Surtax figure down from the present figure of £5,000 a year to the old £2,000, as it was with the Socialists, would it not drive still more of our top scientists and executives away?
I should also like both sides to discuss the much-maligned capital gains tax. The Leader of the Opposition has described it as innocuous, and I understand that the Labour Party is pledged to impose a savage capital gains tax. We are entitled to know how savage it would be. What rate would they impose? Upon whom would it bear? Would anybody be exempt? To go to the country without answering these questions is to get votes on false pretences.
I should also like to hear the question of death duties debated. That would be much better than just sitting playing poker in the club. The Leader of the Opposition, on more than one occasion, has described death duties as a voluntary tax. To some extent, that is true. I remind the House that the rate already goes up to 80 per cent. Therefore, if the Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to get more money from death duties, he must impose heavier rates in the lower ranges. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because, you damn' fool, there is no other way of getting it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member will appreciate that he is getting very near the edge.

Mr. Paget: Is not one alternative to convert a voluntary tax into an involuntary tax?

Sir C. Osborne: That is one reason why I am saying that the House should come back earlier to debate these matters. The hon. and learned Member is not quite as clever as even I thought he was. If the Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer is to get more money


from death duties he must impose heavier taxes in the lower ranges.
Another day I would devote to an incomes policy. This is where the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) comes in. I have a very high regard for his common sense and sound knowledge of industrial matters. We could very well spend one day on discussing an incomes policy, a very important subject. If the Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer were to do as he threatens, namely, to impose a statutory dividend limitation, rigidly to control rents, savagely tax land values and abolish personal expenses, he still would not achieve an incomes policy unless he had control of salaries and wages. We could spend a very good day on this issue. How far has the political wing of the Labour Party got an agreement with its industrial wing that the trade unions would accept a wage and salaries freeze? Would it again be a case of "Vote Labour and have your wages frozen"? That is a possibility.
My last day I would devote to the one issue which completely divides the House. In fact, we would want to spend more than one day on this. Instead of being away all this time, we could come back earlier to discuss the general problem of nationalisation. This is the basis of the philosophy of hon. Members opposite which we oppose completely and which the country hates. We could spend a useful day on this subject. Hon. Members opposite are pledged to renationalise steel and road transport. We should spend a day in discussing this matter. The first question is: why pick on these two? This morning, the Iron and Steel Board issued its record figures for last April. Its production for the month was 527,000 tons, 24 per cent. more than the figure for April last year. This is a marvellous success story, and yet the Labour Party want to nationalise this industry. Why? We want to know.
I should like to return to the question which I raised in the Budget debate and which has never been answered. About a month ago the financial editor reported in the Sunday Express that, over brandy and cigars, the Leader of the Opposition had promised the chairman of I.C.I. that the Labour

Party would not nationalise I.C.I. I was challenged to say this outside. I heard Mr. Paul Chambers on B.B.C. confirm it. Bite that one.

Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that he intended to raise these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—and my right hon. Friend offered to discuss these matters with the hon. Gentleman this morning. However, the hon. Gentleman said that there would be no purpose in that because he had already communicated his intentions and his copy to the Press. I should like to know whether the hon. Member is in order in raising these matters in this rather curious way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No matter of order arises for me to adjudicate on. I am without knowledge of these subjects.

Sir C. Osborne: I will explain to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that he is so touchy. The skids are right under him. Give me another two weeks and hon. Members opposite will not win the General Election.
It is true that in the Library this morning I saw the Leader of the Opposition's P.P.S. and, as a matter of courtesy, I said, "I am going for your boss again. Will you please tell him?" He said, "What on, Cyril?" I said, "On this" and I gave him one of two photostat copies. He said, "Which pieces are you going for?", and I marked them and showed him. How could I be fairer than that?

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. The hon. Member has now confessed to the House, not only that he has been transgressing the rules of order in this debate, but also that he had the intention to do so this morning and that he communicated that intention to the Press. We have had an explicit Ruling from Mr. Speaker that hon. Members were entitled to suggest subjects which might be debated if we returned earlier but were not entitled to put forward arguments on the substance of those subjects. Since the hon. Member has clearly got away with putting forward arguments on the substance of certain matters, will other hon. Members have the same liberty, including liberty to communicate their speeches to the Press?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Chair is not required to rule on anything to do with communicating speeches to the Press. The Question before the House is,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 2nd June".
If hon. Members wish to put forward reasons why they wish the dates to be altered they are in order in doing so. That is what the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has been doing.

Sir C. Osborne: I am trying to reason why we should not adjourn till Tuesday, 2nd June, but should return, like other workers, on Wednesday, 20th May, and to suggest what we should do with the time we thus gain. That is all. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) does not like the facts.
Since I have been challenged about what the Leader of the Opposition said, may I remind the House of what appeared in the Sunday Express. It stated:
The brandy was mellow. The cigars were the finest Havanas"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I find it a little difficult to follow why the House should come back two days earlier to hear that read out; and if it is read out this afternoon, it would seem more extraordinary to argue that we should come back earlier to hear it read out again.

Sir C. Osborne: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it is not the fact that the brandy was good and the cigars excellent that I am on; it is the consequences that follow. It is the political hang-over. This is germane to whether we should adjourn. I do not want to adjourn. I want to argue the political hang-over from that champagne and those cigars. [HON. MEMBERS: "Brandy."] Very well, brandy.
This is what was said:
The Opposition leader who has been having secret lunchtime sessions with all sorts of tycoons…
The House is entitled to know with whom and for what purpose. What promise has the right hon. Gentleman made to them? Why was I.C.I. promised that it would not be nationalised? Why not Courtaulds? Why not Dunlop? What is the price which is being paid? What is still more important is that all this has been printed and has not been

challenged by the Leader of the Opposition.
The article stated that the Leader of the Opposition made
a vigorous attack on Britain's numerous small firms. In particular. he singled out the
small engineering companies. Many of us represent small companies. If it is the policy of hon. Members opposite to be kind to the big tycoons and to crush the little people, in honesty they should tell the little people so.
Furthermore—this is important to my argument and I hope that I may be allowed to make it—it states:
A Socialist Government would encourage take-over bids in this field. It would openly show preference for the bigger organisations.
For months we have had protests from the opposite side of the House about the iniquity of take-over bids, and yet we have it on the authority of the Leader of the Opposition that he will do that himself.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: May I remind my hon. Friend that the Leader of the Opposition also said that there was a lot of dead wood in the boardrooms of many small companies and that he would sweep it all away? The only way he can do it is by nationalising and taking over 51 per cent. of the ordinary shares.

Sir C. Osborne: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend, but his intervention does not help me.
As to the last day that would be saved under my proposal if we do not adjourn for so long, I promise the House that I will come back and debate these things. The electorate and the hon. Members of the Labour Party who sit below the Gangway are entitled to know what bargains the Leader of the Opposition has come to with the tycoons. I have often wondered—and I should like to debate this—why the party opposite has never proposed openly and straight to take over beer and tobacco. Are they frightened that the working man would hate a nationalised fag and a nationalised pint?
My last point about this is the confusion in the Labour Party over the vital question of nationalisation. I want to discuss it. Yesterday, in another place, a noble Lord pointed out—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will be well aware that unless the noble Lord was speaking for the Government as a spokesman, it would be out of order to quote what was said in another place.

Sir C. Osborne: Am I not allowed to refer to it at all, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Perhaps I may say it from memory. It was stated in the other place from the Opposition benches that fruit machines last year made an estimated profit of £10 million. It was advocated from the Opposition benches that because £10 million profit was made, the fruit machines should be nationalised. But I.C.I., which made a trading profit of £150 million, is being excused. Despite the fact that the proposal which has been made would ruin half of the working-men's clubs, this is what the Socialist Party proposes.
My last two quotations concern nationalisation. The quotation which I gave to the Leader of the Opposition's P.P.S. and which he has with him came from the Evening Standard of 4th May, and I want to read it to the House, because it is germane to the problem. It states in the City columns:
Harold Wilson has told Colonel Charles Clark—chairman of Alfred Herbert, Britain's biggest machine-tool group—that a Labour Government would aim to build up majority shareholdings in several big machine-tool companies.
Colonel Clark tells me: 'I sat next to him at lunch and he came out with this.'
[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Leader of the Opposition now?"] [An HON. MEMBER: "At lunch."] This is desperately important, and not even funny—

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is putting over a statement when he knows that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition denies that this meeting or luncheon took place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is Leader of the Opposition?"] My right hon. Friend cannot be expected to answer personally for any and every lunch that happens to have taken place over a period of years. The hon. Member for Louth does not know when it took place—if it did. I hope that the word of the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I could not assist the House in giving a Ruling on that matter. It does not appear to be for the Chair.

Sir C. Osborne: It is true that the P.P.S. to the Leader of the Opposition came to me after I had given him the photostat copy. He had not seen it until then. I had been doing the work for the Leader of the Opposition. I gave this to his P.P.S. and told him that would refer to it. He said that it was untrue. I said that in the event—and I do not doubt the word of the Leader of the Opposition—the place to deny it is on the Floor of the House of Commons. If this statement is not true, surely the Leader of the Opposition should take out an action for libel against the newspaper.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wigg rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member rises to a point of order?

Mr. Wigg: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am most anxious not to inhibit the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) in any way, but I spoke earlier in the debate and I found myself in some conflict with the Chair. What I cannot understand are the Rulings that were given to me and how they apply to the hon. Member for Louth—or can I now take it beyond any shadow of doubt that there is one set of rules for a Labour Member and another for a Tory Member?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. The hon. Member and the House appreciate that the occupant of the Chair endeavours to keep the debate within the rules of order. What I am now doing is to endeavour to keep the debate on the Question,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 2nd June.
That is what I am endeavouring to do. In so far as what the hon. Member for Louth, Sir C. Osborne) says can be taken as an argument for coming back before 2nd June, I believe it to be in order and I have allowed him to continue with his speech.

Mr. Wigg: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman was in order, and I am equally sure that I also was in order.

Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of order. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was perhaps absent when you were giving your earlier Rulings, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I must say that, from the Rulings which you gave at an earlier stage, I understood that you were extending the interpretation which Mr. Speaker had put upon the scope of the debate. As I understood it, Mr. Speaker had said that we could put forward subjects which ought to be discussed if we came back earlier and also that we could state very briefly the essential points which would be involved. I now understand from your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we are also entitled, at least briefly, to sum up the arguments, on one side or the other, on the substance of the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member raises any further point of order that requires replying to.

Sir C. Osborne: If the House will allow me I will draw to a close, but I would say in reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), which was really not a point of order, that the hon. Gentleman himself took nearly 40 minutes in dealing with one point. I have tried to touch lightly on different points.
The editor of the Evening Standard finally said this, and this should be made clear to the House:
I do not dispute Mr. Wilson's right to air ideas at these hush-hush meetings with various industrial leaders, but I say that he has no business to keep the electorate in ignorance about his plans.
This is what I am asking for. In a free democracy people are entitled to know. Just to show my good reasons why I want this confusion over nationalisation cleared up I will quote to the House what the Labour candidate in the Devizes constituency, who is seeking votes today, said only yesterday on this issue. I quote from the Daily Telegraph:
Mr. Rogers said that he would not press if returned for the nationalisation of the"—

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can this ever be deemed to be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the debate on the Motion before the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the right hon. Member had been present during the last half hour, and, indeed, during the

last hour, he would have observed that the Chair was often in a little difficulty in deciding when the limit of what was in order and what was out of order was reached. I think that we have come to another of these awkward moments when the limit is very nearly reached, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) will be careful not to overstep it.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. May I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman has in no way reached the limit of the Chair's indulgence. After all, he is a Conservative Member.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: As a Member of his House, may I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the House to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite to withdraw the imputation that he has made twice against the Chair, that partiality has been shown to one side against the other?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The whole House will know that if it is wished to criticise the Chair that can only be done on a Motion, and not during the course of the debate.

Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. The last thing that I would wish to do would be to charge the Chair with partiality. The Chair is always impartial. The only thing is that at times it is more impartial than at others.

Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of order. As one who has been present during the debate at least as long as the hon. Member opposite, may I say that my impression is distinctly that the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has been allowed considerable liberties in the debate which were not allowed to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I have said, if hon. Members feel discontented they have a course of action before them, but it is not orderly to criticise the Chair while the debate is going on.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, rather different from those raised by my hon. Friends? After all that the hon. Baronet the


Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has said this afternoon, I would like to plead on his behalf that he should not now be stopped from retailing to the House any other odd bit of gossip which he may have managed to gather anywhere as a reason for the House not adjourning.

Sir C. Osborne: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will reply to two of those points. I resent the interruption by the right hon. Member, for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) who has only just come into the Chamber. He has no right to interfere like that in view of the fact that his Deputy-Leader said earlier in the debate, "Go on. Let us have more of it." He had better go back to Smethwick and try to keep his seat.
As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted by the right hon. Member for Smethwick, the Labour candidate in Devizes—

Mr. C. Pannell: Is that in order?

Sir C. Osborne: Of course it is.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will be very careful to devote his remarks to the question why he wants us not to rise tomorrow, or, alternatively, why he wants us to return before 2nd June.

Mr. Monslow: On a point of order. Would it be possible for the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), before he concludes his speech, to give us some indication as to how he is entertained by Mr. Khrushchev in the Kremlin when he is selling his stockings?

Mr. Wigg: No, no.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I recognise nothing in that point of order which requires the Chair to reply.

Sir C. Osborne: As that was a personal attack on me by a white-livered man, I will, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, reply to it.

Mr. G. Brown: I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the debate must surely now be getting to the real limits of a shambles. This has nothing to do with any merits that there

may be in the argument, to which I will come in a moment. We have heard the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) call one hon. Member a damned fool, to which you replied, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it was getting near the limit, though he was not asked to withdraw, and we have heard the hon. Gentleman call another hon. Member a white-livered man, and on that occasion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you did not intervene at all. The hon. Gentleman is trying to quote speeches by people who are not Members of the House as part of his argument, and to that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you simply say that it is getting somewhere near the limit.
I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Rulings that have been given this afternoon have taken the debate, enjoyable as it has been and good as it will be to answer in a moment, far outside the limits that have ever been allowed in my experience on a Motion before the House. I therefore ask you to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Rulings which you have given will apply to every occupant of the Chair. Let us recognise that the hon. Member for Louth is doing no service to the House at all.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that I am called upon to reply to the right hon. Member's last comment, which is, in fact, a matter of opinion and not a matter for the rules of order. As for keeping the debate in order, the House must appreciate that there is scope for getting very near abuse. It is the endeavour of myself, as occupant of the Chair, to avoid the debate getting too wide, and I hope that we can continue debating with that constantly in mind.

Sir C. Osborne: I shall wind up, but I think hon. Members on both sides will agree with me that I am entitled to defend my character, and I deeply resent the slur which was cast on my character. I think I can say that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have known me for 20 years at least do not accuse me of being a cheat or a liar.

Mr. Monslow: I did not.

Sir C. Osborne: I am accused of what I was doing with Mr. Khrushchev—that I was selling silk stockings in the Kremlin. That is what was said. In the first place,


I do not make silk stockings. In the second place, I do not sell them. In the third place, and most important—

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Mr. Khrushchev does not wear them.

Sir C. Osborne: —if I may be allowed to say this publicly—I have not said it before, and it touches my honour—I have been offered orders in the Soviet Union and I have always refused them—because of accusations like that that might come from hon. Members. I deeply resent them.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Monslow: I will withdraw that, and on the point the hon. Member is making, I accept his word, but there is one point I shall not withdraw. The hon. Member has referred to Members of this House dining with members of I.C.I. I simply ask the hon. Member a bald question—how did he dine with Mr. Khrushchev in the Kremlin? Did he drink his vodka?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] That is the complaint?

Sir C. Osborne: I shall draw to a close. There are many other things I should like to say, but I will say this finally to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They seem to think that the Labour Party at the next election is going to have the reins of Government put into its inexperienced and inexpert fingers. Before they put their feeble hands on the economic levers of power, I think it is due to the electorate of this country that they should tell us exactly what they are going to do. I am pleading that we come back earlier in order to give them the opportunity to do so.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on what I thought was a most enjoyable and ingenious piece of electioneering. I have no doubt that he will become the campaign manager of the Tory Party.

Mr. G. Brown: Is that a promise?

Mr. Grimond: What I was in doubt about at times was on exactly whose behalf he was electioneering. Sometimes I thought he looked like giving us what would become his election address. There were other times when it seemed to me to be Labour Party propaganda

—which rather confirms my view that there is a certain amount of collusion.
After all, there is a Conservative Government, but the hon. Member was ignoring them and putting all these questions up to the Labour Party. This is defeatist, and very rude to the hon. Member's right hon. Friends sitting on the Front Bench. They ought to be able to give us some answers about white men in Southern Rhodesia, about immigration, about taxation, about all these matters which the hon. Member so cogently raised.
I have no doubt that if by any chance he should lose his seat he can look forward to a very profitable career indeed on the halls. I must confess that for my part I greatly enjoyed his speech, but I hope that if he succeeds in convincing the Leader of the House that we ought to come back earlier he will not repeat his speech, which went on for some time, but will come back to listen. I hope that he will not be found only playing poker, if, after all, there is any chance that he or anyone else should convince his right hon. and learned Friend. The Leader of the House looks almost as though he thinks that we should come back earlier, and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has said that he was much impressed by the hon. Member's speech. If the hon. Member or the right hon. Member succeeds in bringing the House back earlier no doubt some people will come, but quite a lot will stay away.
I agree with the hon. Member that there are many subjects to be discussed and I wonder that he did not add foreign affairs to his long and, indeed, convincing list. I want to say one word about an earlier matter, which was the proposal by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about a committee of inquiry. I do not want to follow up what he said, though I share many of the views he has put forward about the Suez expedition, but the point I want to make is that I believe the House has to consider—and it may be that some inquiry is the right way for considering it—how the House may become adequately informed. I do not want to discuss this at length this afternoon, but I suggest that this is a serious question particularly for foreign affairs and defence.
Anyone in the House at the time of Suez cannot be altogether proud of the way the House behaved. We felt that we were misinformed. Rightly or wrongly, we felt that we were being misled. I think that if a similar situation should be repeated it is very desirable that we should have some machinery for informing ourselves upon what may be absolutely vital matters of defence and foreign affairs.
It has been candidly admitted by Lord Avon, as I have said earlier, that there were discussions and conversations. I should have thought that by now tempers had sufficiently cooled to enable us to have a little more information now with whom those conversations took place, and what was their result. Some of this will undoubtedly come out, and I think that when it does come out it may be damaging to the House, quite apart from many people in it. I am concerned about this. This House rightly took a very strong line against a right hon. Gentleman who misled it. I am not suggesting that there was anything similar in this case, but we were at that time searching our consciences and concerned about the duty owed to this House by hon. and right hon. Members.
It is an extremely difficult question in my mind how much the Government can tell and when they can tell it, but I think that this is a matter which has got to be examined, and that we should know what these conversations were about. It is most undesirable that the Press of France should be filled from time to time with allegations which are not denied and of which we tend to take no notice. They can have a considerable effect on public opinion throughout the world. I do not believe that it does any good to the House or to the Government.
In addition to other matters of inquiry, I think that there is a genuine and serious matter of inquiry here, and that it is important that the House should be kept informed on foreign affairs and defence, and also that it is time now, many years after the event, that we were told a little more about this very important instance of the Suez expedition.

5.38 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I was prompted to intervene in the debate by the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the point he made which has been taken up, wrapped up in a somewhat different covering, by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
I do not, frankly, think that it is very difficult to discover what were the motives of the hon. Member for Dudley in arguing that we ought to have some form of inquiry into what might or might not have taken place before the Suez operation before the House can adjourn for the Whitsun Recess. By process of elimination I can straight away, I think, say what his motives were not. Certainly, he was not moved by any desire to improve Anglo-American relations, because the book of Professor Finer, to which he referred, and which has given rise to these hoary old chestnuts, was very critical of the late Mr. John Foster Dulles. Nor was he moved by any desire to improve Anglo-Egyptian relations. I acquit the hon. Gentleman straight away of any desire to improve still further the relations between Egypt and the Soviet Union.
The answer is that the motives of the hon. Member for Dudley and, perhaps in a slightly different way, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in raising this subject at all are clear. They think that they can gain a short-term electoral advantage. M. Pineau, one of the principal characters involved—he was the French Foreign Minister at the time—put the matter with great clarity in a statement in the Guardian last Monday. He said:
I am particularly annoyed that my name has been used in the United States as well as in Britain, and that information which belongs to objective history has been used for electioneering, purposes.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not want to curb the hon. Gentleman. However, first he puts into my mouth the exact opposite of what I said. I repudiated the Finer book. I said that it was worthless. Then the hon. Member is allowed to quote from the book, which is something that Mr. Speaker specifically refused to allow me to do. What sort of game are we playing at?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not expect the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to raise that as a point of order, because, clearly, that is not a point of order. I had been prepared for the hon. Member to complain that the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) was going too far into detail, possibly in conflict with previous Rulings. My answer to that was going to be that to reply to what is said in the debate would be in order. But I hope that we can get back to the question of advancing reasons why the House should not rise tomorrow or, if it does rise tomorrow, why it should come back before 2nd June.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I was not quoting from the book. I was merely quoting from M. Pineau's comments on the book. I do not see why I should not be entitled to quote M. Pineau's comments on the book since the hon. Member for Dudley was allowed to make his own comments. I do not see anything out of order in it.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not want to cramp the hon. Gentleman's style. He said that he was not quoting from the book, but was quoting M. Pineau's remarks. Mr. Speaker refused to allow me to do that. I cannot help but draw the obvious conclusion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sure that the House will appreciate the difficulty which arises when one hon. Member says something and then the matter gets carried further. It would be good if the House would come back to the question that we are debating, advancing reasons why we should not stay away until 2nd June.

Sir C. Mott-Radelyffe: I was simply assessing the motives of the hon. Member for Dudley in arguing that we should come back before 2nd June or not adjourn tomorrow until there had been a commission of inquiry set up to go into the allegations made in the book by Professor Finer. I should not think that that was out of order.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. With great respect, and without any criticism of the Chair, because the debate has been difficult to control, I should have thought that quite

an astonishing amount that has been out of order has been heard today. However, the one thing which I should have thought was plainly in order upon the issue as to whether there should be an inquiry into the position over Suez was what M. Pineau said, and if the hon. Gentleman is going on to tell us that, I very much hope he will not be prevented. I should have thought that that was the one relevant point.

Mr. Wigg: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have not the slightest objection to the hon. Member saying what M. Pineau said. I have a slight objection to his pointing out the exact opposite of what I said and saying that I supported the Finer book when I repudiated it specifically. My point of order is simple, to draw attention, once again, to the fact that there is one set of rules for one hon. Member and another set for somebody else. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have allowed the hon. Member to quote M. Pineau, but I was denied the opportunity of doing the same thing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—I have pointed it out before—that if an hon. Member wishes to criticise the Chair it is not orderly to do so during the debate, but that a certain course can be taken and it is possible to put down a Motion.

Sir C. Mott-Radelyffe: I do not know why the hon. Member should get so excited. I was simply saying that among the motives which prompted him to argue against adjourning for the Whit-sun Recess the motive of furthering Anglo-American relations cannot have been included, because the book was critical of Mr. John Foster Dulles. I went on to say, and I repeat, that his real motive was to attempt to get a short-term political electioneering advantage. That is what I said five minutes ago was the motive, and I repeat now that it is so.
My recollection of all the allegations of collusion made at the time—they varied in one form or another from time to time—was that they were all answered by the then Prime Minister in the debates between October and December. I do not think that that has any relevance now, nor do I think that the Labour Party can hope to gain very
much political advantage by digging up these old bones. The attitude of the Labour Party both outside the House and in, and, to a lesser extent, the attitude of the Liberal Party both outside the House and in, during, the Suez operations, when British troops were in action, did not bring them very big political dividends, and certainly did not enhance their reputation in the country.
Therefore, I do not think that they would be well advised to seek any short-term political advantage by trying to resuscitate all these old arguments now. In other words, the hare which they are hunting arising from the book by Professor Finer is not a very profitable one. It is very old stuff, and, frankly, I do not think that it has very much to do with the issue of whether or not we should rise tomorrow for the Whitsun Recess.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I do not want to say very much about what the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) has said. I wish to address you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the difficulties of the debate, and I do so with very great respect. It is very difficult when the occupants of the Chair change. We understand that. We do not expect the Deputy-Speaker to be looking over his shoulder and wondering what his predecessor has done. You can take your decision and give your Ruling only in the light of your knowledge. However, we have been led into very great difficulty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley(Mr. Wigg) attempted to go into matters which were later touched on by the hon. Member for Windsor. If one reads what was said—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Pannell: I am submitting a point of order. I have only just began. The hon. Member cannot be raising a point of order now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to make his speech. It is now the wish of another hon. Member to raise a point of order. Mr. Lewis.

Mr. K. Lewis: My point of order is that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) would appear—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order.

Mr. Michael Foot: This is a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: —to be making a speech which appears to be critical of the Chair. I understand from your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that an hon. Member can criticise the Chair in a speech only if a Motion is before the House. There is no Motion before the House and, therefore, I would have thought that the hon. Member was not in order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not take the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, West as being in any way disorderly in criticism.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I only want to find out exactly where it is we are. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to say to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that he was on a point of order. If he had been on a point of order, of course it would have been quite wrong to allow another hon. Member to introduce another point of order in the middle of his point of order. You said that you called him not to submit a point of order, but to make a speech. Is it not for him to say whether he rose to make a speech or raise a point of order? Might we not hear from him which it was he intended?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Leeds, West, whom I called to make a speech, will be good enough to tell the House whether, in fact, he rose to make a speech.

Mr. C. Pannell: I was bound to preface it with those remarks, because I wanted to come immediately to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and particularly to what he said about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Again, with great respect, I wanted to ask the House and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to reflect upon the course of matters this afternoon. I should have thought that it was almost without precedent for an hon. Member to suggest to the House why we should not adjourn because he wanted information from the Opposition. The hon.


Gentleman said that he wanted some days. He touched on so many things that it was obvious that he would have used up all the supply days of the Session to deal with them.
As a matter of fact, the hon. Member was on a completely "phoney" premise. A sort of Ministerial responsibility cannot be attributed to the Leader of the Opposition, which is what the hon. Member tried to do. Although the hon. Member was very anxious to protest his honesty, his virtue and his integrity—and there is an old proverb about that—he was less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. As I understand, the hon. Gentleman met my right hon. Friend's personal private secretary this morning and gave him notice that he intended to raise these matters this afternoon. He was told that my right hon. Friend denied ever saying anything of the kind, at least in one of the quotations, but the hon. Gentleman was invited to see my right hon. Friend.
No hon. Member wants to bandy charges about in public, especially in the House, if he can be convinced that the charges are not well founded. However, the hon. Member for Louth said that he did not want to do it that way and had already acquainted the Press with what he intended to say. From time to time we all serve notice on people that we want to raise a matter, but when those people approach us and say, "No, I did not say that", we are all honourable Members and in such circumstances, in 15 years in the House, I have never proceeded further. If an hon. Member says something, he has a right to be believed, or there is no point in calling him an "honourable" Member. When the hon. Member for Louth speaks about Mr. Khrushchev, I believe him because he says it.
In exactly the same way, the hon. Member cannot expect the Leader of the Opposition to reply to every statement which is put out by any columnist in a most casual way and then go to him in the morning and demand his presence on the Front Bench, especially in view of all the commitments which a Leader of the Opposition has. The hon. Gentleman would not expect it from the Prime Minister or any other Minister. His course was to talk to the

Leader of the Opposition, who had invited him to do so because he could prove that the charge was ill-founded, and yet the hon. Gentleman persisted in a course of conduct which at best was disorderly and at worst rather contemptible.
What appeared in the Evening Standard of Monday, 4th May, was a report of a casual conversation without a date. My right hon. Friend denies that he ever said anything of the kind.

Sir C. Osborne: If the right hon. Gentleman has been misquoted in a very serious and responsible newspaper, such as the Evening Standard, which is a responsible newspaper, I am entitled to take it at its face value, and if it is wrong it is for the right hon. Gentleman to come here and say that it was wrong, or to take action against the newspaper which misrepresented him.

Mr. Pannell: The newspaper and the hon. Gentleman cannot know what action my right hon. Friend has taken. My right hon. Friend is responsible for the policy of our party and plenty of that policy can be read in policy statements. There was a smear running through the suggestion that tycoons, responsible people in industry, had invited my right hon. Friend to meet them. Of course they have. We had the same thing with my right hon. Friend's predecessor. Why do they want to meet my right hon. Friend? It is because they know that he is just as much a man of the future as the Prime Minister is a man who has only a past. That is the fact.
If hon. Members ask any of my right hon. or hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, those who hold any sort of brief at all, a "shadow" Minister, they will find that there is more than a glancing interest in their activities and in how they would react to this, that or the other in the future. Only yesterday the building societies published correspondence with my right hon. Friend for exactly that sort of reason. Of course they are interested.

Sir C. Osborne: If the right hon. Gentleman and members of the "shadow" Cabinet are being attacked by tycoons and businessmen as to how they react and what they intend to do, why do they not tell the House of Commons?

Mr. Pannell: They are not being attacked. They are being courted by all the sycophants in industry who know that, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, the election will go a certain way. Hon. Members opposite need not worry about this any more, for the tycoons do not worry about them any more.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not just possible that these tycoons attend luncheons with the Leader of the Opposition for precisely the same and perfectly honourable reason that the hon. Baronet the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) attends luncheons with Mr. Khrushchev in Moscow—they are both looking for trade?

Mr. F. M. Bennett: On a point of order. Hon. Members opposite keep referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) as the "hon. Baronet". In fact he is not, although he should be after today's performance.

Mr. Pannell: I refrain from making an adequate comment on that. I think that the hon. Gentleman does not necessarily want to bequeath the title to his son. It is one of his boasts that he has pulled himself by his own bootstraps and I would hope that he would expect his sons to do the same.

Sir C. Osborne: I will.

Mr. Pannell: We have agreement on one thing.
I think that I have covered most of what I wanted to say. I do not think that any public man, whether on the Opposition or Government benches, should be expected to reply to every innuendo. Any hon. Member who has read this piece knows that it was an innuendo. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Louth will appreciate that he did not take the sort of course which honour would have dictated from him. This sort of thing which goes on throughout the country from time to time is a complete smear. If hon. Members want to know the policy of our party, they can read it in policy documents, and the leader of the party stands on policy documents and does not want to stand on anything else. I hope that we have now had enough of this sort of thing and that we can serve notice on it.
We had better remember that when we impute motives to one another in public life it goes right across parties, because people tend to take a lower view of us on both sides of the House than we may deserve. In that he has not promoted the sort of feeling which I have in mind, the hon. Member for Louth does not have a great deal of reason to be proud of his speech. Never before have I heard the curious principle that the House of Commons should be asked to meet to hear what the next Government will do after the General Election. That is a complete abuse of the processes of the House, and I am against it, whatever the ruling from the Chair.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: Having listened to the valuable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), I feel that should the Opposition have the courage to take this matter to a Division today, I shall have to go into the Lobby with them. I say that because during the last 12 months many members of the Opposition, both "shadow" Ministers and others, have visited my constituency to make speeches, and have complained bitterly about the time available to them in the House to make statements which they think my constituents, among others, should know about.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been to Hornchurch once, and I think that the Leader of the Opposition has been there twice. Despite the fact that they have been asked to answer a question which is of vital importance to many of my constituents, they have never been forthcoming. The question is whether they would be prepared to nationalise the great Ford motor works. If it is possible to have a debate on that subject to give the Opposition a chance of being forthcoming, I for one would be delighted to attend the House and debate this important matter with them.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: For my part, I heartily enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). I always enjoy his speeches. He has a certain intensity of expression, and a certain gleam in his


eyes, and one suddently realises that he has spotted the steam coming out of the kettle again. Listening to the hon. Gentleman is one of the great joys of being a Member of the House. On this occasion I thoroughly enjoyed his speech, and I must come to his defence, because he was talking about the only thing that matters. The intentions of the Government do not matter now. The relevant thing is the intention of the Opposition. Everybody is realising that, and they are right to do so. This is a dead Government, which ought to have gone long since.
I wish to put forward two important reasons why we should not adjourn at this time. First, we are conducting warlike operations in Aden, and I feel—and we have cause for this—that there is a pretty profound lack of confidence in the political direction of those operations. We have had the incident, apparently ordered by the Prime Minister, of heavy bombs being dropped on a ridge. This is a political decision of great importance. I believe that I am right in saying that this is the first occasion in our history on which bombs have been used without warning against personnel engaged in tribal warfare. The usual practice in these tribal wars is to give warning of bombing. The people then move out, and some property is destroyed either as a reprisal or as a punishment. Quite suddenly this new policy has been adopted.
The decision having been taken to use bombs, the Prime Minister justifies it on the ground that it is providing air cover for our troops. Whatever else it is, it is not that. Bombing a ridge has nothing remotely to do with air cover, and so, at a time when this House proposes to adjourn, one is left with the anxiety that decisions of high political content are being taken by a man who displays an astonishing ignorance of what his decisions mean.
We have been told today that opinion in Aden with regard to joining the Yemen has altered. I am sure that that is so. I am sure that there is practically no support in Aden for joining the Yemen, because of the conduct of the Egyptians who have dropped bombs, including napalm bombs. This action has outraged tribal opinion, but we have

now done the same thing, and we are told that it was done to give cover to our troops.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but I take it that his argument is that because of these things the House should not adjourn tomorrow?

Mr. Paget: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Paget: My point is that we are engaged in warlike operations guided by a political directorate which has given one cause to doubt its competence and its understanding. The argument for using Shackletons to bomb a ridge in order to provide air cover for ground troops makes one extremely anxious about the competence of those in charge of these operations. That is really all that I have to say about Aden.
The other point which seems to me to be of importance is the one dealt with by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Our political organisation and our political system depend on the trust which can, and must, exist between Parliament and the Government who draw their authority from Parliament. That is why the conduct of the late Secretary of State for War was regarded with the utmost seriousness. Now the question arises whether another Secretary of State, now the Leader of the House, did much the same thing. That is why we want an inquiry into what happened.
It was said at the time of the Suez incident that there had been a meeting between Mr. Ben Gurion, M. Pineau, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, at which it was disclosed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that arrangements had been made for Israel to invade Egyptian territory.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Are we not now getting into the subject matter which should be considered if an inquiry is made, rather than the fact whether there should be an inquiry or not?

Mr. Paget: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, no. I am saying why this inquiry should be made. I am saying that it should be made because of a


particular charge which I am describing and which is hanging over the Government. The charge made at the time of Suez was that this meeting had taken place and that the intention to invade Egypt had been disclosed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman some time before the invasion took place. That meeting and disclosure were denied at the time by the Government and, I believe, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman personally. They were certainly denied either by him or by the then Prime Minister beside him.
It has now been said that M. Pineau has told a journalist that that conversation did take place and that that disclosure was made. As the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) pointed out, M. Pineau, when asked about this statement in the book, refused to deny that this conversation and this disclosure had taken place. In those circumstances, we have asked the Government—and at Question Time today we asked the Prime Minister—to repeat the denial that the Prime Minister's predecessor made. The present Prime Minister has refused to repeat that denial. That refusal places the veracity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman directly in issue, and we should not adjourn while a charge of this sort hangs over his head, when neither he nor the Prime Minister is prepared to deny it.
It cannot be said that we are bringing forward new grounds and that we must not disclose this or go into it. One denial has already been made. The sinister thing is the refusal to repeat what has already been said.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: The Motion is that the House should adjourn until Tuesday, 2nd June. The debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who made an outstanding speech in which he deployed many arguments against the proposal that we should adjourn for so long. I found myself in agreement with practically everything that he said. He was followed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in arguing that on the Suez and Aden cases alone the House should not adjourn.
I agree with them. These are vital questions, affecting the honour of the Government and of Great Britain. It lends no credit to Parliament, as an institution, if we go from this House until 2nd June without insisting that the Government should give some frank answers to the pertinent questions that have been raised. I would have thought that the matters raised by my hon. Friends would be sufficient grounds to refuse to agree to the Motion.
We then had a highly entertaining and most amusing speech from the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), who is now probably very frightened about his own coming election.

Sir C. Osborne: I won my seat in 1945 with a majority of 4,500. If the hon. Member would like to put some money down for Louth, I will cover it.

Mr. Paget: What odds are you laying?

Mr. Stonehouse: I will certainly take the hon. Member up on that. Devizes was also won by a Conservative in 1945. There will be some changes in other constituencies which are at present held by Conservatives.
The most interesting point in the hon. Member's speech was the fact that he addressed his questions not to his right hon. and hon. Friends, but to my hon. Friends—because he knows, as everybody in the country knows, that the Labour Party will win the election and will be responsible for the Government of the country from next October onwards. The hon. Member's speech was an outstanding argument for an early General Election rather than for continuing this caretaker Government, who are fumbling and tripping over themselves every day of the week, and hanging on to administration until next October.
One thing that has impressed me about the debate is the fact that practically every speaker has spilled over into arguments justifying the case why the House should not adjourn. Why have they done this? It is because they have few other opportunities in which to deploy their points. That consideration applies not only to my hon. Friends, but to those hon. Members opposite who have participated in the debate.
That is perhaps the strongest argument for returning earlier than 2nd June. If


we did that we could debate these matters in a more orderly way than we have been doing today. If we did that we could bring Ministers to the Treasury Bench to answer the various points that have been raised and the points which will be raised if we have an opportunity to raise them.
I oppose the Motion because we have had too few opportunities to discuss foreign affairs. The last full foreign affairs debate, on an ordinary day, took place last July—nearly 12 months ago—although it is true that we had a debate on Friday, 15th November, during the debate on the Address, when overseas affairs in general were discussed. I want to quote what the Foreign Secretary said on that occasion. He referred to the speech of the Prime Minister at the Guildhall, and went on:
I know that I shall greatly profit by the Prime Minister's own experience and great skill as Foreign Secretary in conducting my own duties as Foreign Secretary in succession to him. I think the fact that our pint wisdom is available to the House of Commons is probably unique in the history of the conduct of foreign affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 502.]
I do not want to come into conflict with that expression of opinion, but it is not unique that we have a Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary as Members of the House of Commons, both with experience of foreign affairs. What is unique is that the experience and wisdom of the Foreign Secretary has not been available to the House in debate since last November. Six months have passed since we had a foreign affairs debate. This is a shocking commentary on the capacity of Parliament to make the Executive accountable for what they are doing in this most important field. We are spending £2,000 million a year on our defence forces to bolster up a foreign policy that we have not discussed for over six months.
There are many pertinent questions that I would like to put to the Foreign Secretary if we could come back before 2nd June and have a full day, or even two days, to discuss foreign affairs. In his speech on 15th November the right hon. Gentleman referred to the discussions he had had, within the Western European Union, with the Foreign Ministers of the countries of the Six. We

have not had the opportunity of questioning the Foreign Secretary in debate as to his further commitment of this country in negotations for Britain's entry into the Common Market, in the unlikely event of the Conservative Party's winning the next election.
The very pointed questions that my right hon. Friend has put to the Prime Minister on this subject have not been answered. Though the Prime Minister boasts of being a straight talker, on this issue we have had no straight talk at all. We can only assume that, were the Conservative Party to win the next election, it would resume negotiations for Britain to join the Common Market on the original terms which were being discussed, and which, as everyone knows, were completely undermining this country's relations with the Commonwealth and the position of our farmers, and destroying our sovereignty and our capacity to plan our own economy.
Before hon. Members criticise, and follow the hon. Member for Louth in saying that we on this side of the House have not made our position clear on this question, they should remember that the attitude of the Labour Party has been completely clear. The position of the Government is very murky. If the House reassembles before 2nd June, I hope that we may have an opportunity to discuss this subject, which is most important for the future of Britain. It is one for which the Conservative Party should be accountable to the electorate if it intends to resume those negotiations.
The hon. Member for Louth deployed one argument with which I entirely agree. He said that the House should reassemble before 2nd June so that we could discuss the position of Southern Rhodesia. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was wound up at the end of last December, over five months ago. During that period there has been a lot of controversy, in Rhodesia, in this country and at the United Nations, about the position of Southern Rhodesia. Petitions have been sent to this country and there have been demands that independence should be allowed to the Government of Southern Rhodesia, although that Administration represents only a tiny fraction of the population.
The significant thing is that during the last few months the House of Commons


—the very assembly which should have been discussing it—has ignored this question. We have not had an opportunity to discuss the issue of Southern Rhodesia in this House, although it has been discussed in other assemblies. We should discuss it here.
When the Foreign Secretary spoke on 15th November, he said:
I should like also to stress our loyal sup, port of the United Nations. We want to see this organisation growing in strength and in influence…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November. 1963; Vol. 684, c. 513.]
If there is an opportunity for a foreign affairs debate, I should like to hear the Foreign Secretary justify the action of the United Kingdom representative on the United Nations Committee on Colonialism, who walked out of the Committee when it was being addressed by Mr. George Nyandoro, one of the Southern Rhodesia spokesmen. Why did our representative do that? Why has not Her Majesty's Government responded to the pleas made to them to make their position on Southern Rhodesia crystal clear?
Another question to which I should like a reply is: what answer have we given to the demands from the Governments of Ghana and India on the question of the incarceration of Mr. Joshua Nkomo in prison in Southern Rhodesia—because he is demanding democratic rights for his own folk—that we should intervene? These are all very important questions and the element of responsibility for Southern Rhodesia is in this House of Commons. It is a shocking commentary on our Parliamentary system that we should have gone all these months without having a debate on these subjects.
Many other questions have been raised for which there has been insufficient time for debate. There have, for example, been occasions when the proceedings on Fridays have been marred by hon. Members who have cried "Object" to Private Members' Bills which we have wanted to get on to the Statute Book, but which we have been denied an opportunity to debate. This has happened either because the hon. Member introducing them has not been sufficiently fortunate to win a high place in the Ballot, or the Government are not prepared to give time for the Bill to be discussed.
I suggest that Parliament should return before 2nd June to give an opportunity for the adequate ventilation of some of these Private Members' Bills. I do not advocate that we should return on the day suggested by the hon. Member for Louth, but on 26th May. This would give us five extra days for debate, one of which would be a Friday, when perhaps it would be possible to provide time to debate the Bill dealing with racial discrimination, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). We on this side of the House intend to pass that Bill into law after the General Election. If the Government had the courage they would allow the Bill to be debated now and become law within the next few weeks.
Another Bill which merits consideration is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) relating to severance pay. There was a short debate on the Bill. But we should have another opportunity to discuss it, as the subject is of vital importance to hundreds of thousands of workers who face the prospect of being thrown out of work because of the introduction of new techniques into the factories where they are employed.
The hon. Member for Louth—he has left the Chamber—referred to the problem of automation, but I do not remember his being here when my hon. Friend's Bill was discussed and we were attempting to obtain some practical assistance for workers who will be thrown on to the scrap heap as a result of the introduction of these new techniques.
I have a direct interest in this subject, because a large works in my constituency, where 600 men are employed, is to close at the end of this year. There is plenty of employment in the West Midlands and many of these men will be able to and jobs elsewhere, but I am concerned—as are many other hon. Members who face similar situations in their own constituencies—about the older men, men between 55 and 60, and who probably will not be able to get another job. They are being offered derisory compensation terms for the loss of their jobs. It is suggested that they should receive £1 for every year they have served the firm. What a fatuous


suggestion to make to a man who may have worked for 40 years for a particular firm. The minimum amount which should be offered to him is one week's pay for every year for which he has worked.
I hope that Parliament will reassemble before 2nd June so that these questions may be discussed, because they are of vital importance to our constituents. I do not think that our constituents will expect us to take so many days off from our parliamentary duties while these questions are left undiscussed.
Another point which is of considerable interest to most hon. Members—particularly those who represent rural constituents—is that of rail closures. We have not had enough time to debate this very important question. Yesterday, I put down two Questions to the Minister of Transport for oral answer. Questions addressed to the Minister of Transport were at the top of the list, but my Questions were not reached, so I had to be content with Written Answers, which were quite unsatisfactory.
Questions to the Minister of Transport will be at the top of the list on only one more occasion between now and the General Election. There is no guarantee that if I put down another two Questions they will be reached even then. It is very important that we should have enough time to discuss railway closures and the effect that they will have, not only on the convenience of constituents but also on the economy of our constituencies and the resulting effects of overcrowding on the roads and so on. These are all vital questions.
Then there are all the early-day Motions on the Order Paper. It will not have escaped the notice of the Leader of the House that today, when he announced the business for the week after we return, only one hon. Member rose to ask a question. Hon. Members have got "fed up" with the usual reply of the Leader of the House, "Not next week". He is always saying that. Why should we not return five days earlier and devote some time to debate the Motions which appear on the Order Paper?
There is Motion No. 98, in the name of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T.

Moore), on the Wolfenden Committee's Report on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution. That Motion has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House and should be debated. There is the Motion of the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell), another Conservative Member, on intensive factory farming. Many people are very much concerned about that subject and want it to be raised in the House.
There is the question of the addition to the House of Commons and the Report of the Select Committee on Accommodation. There are the proposals on that by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and several other hon. Members. These should be discussed.
There are on the Order Paper 105 early-day Motions, many of which are now worthy of close examination and debate by the House. These are reasons why we should not adjourn until 2nd June, but come back a few days earlier to do what our constituents have sent us here to do—discuss issues which affect them and which are all-important to our country.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: We have come to the end of a debate which I think for a very long time will interest students of how this kind of Motion should be debated. Many things which I have understood are not part of the routine in discussing a Motion of this kind have been established in the debate as permissible to discuss and seemed to appeal to the occupant of the Chair. We have had a constructive and wide-ranging debate.
I shall not go over all the same ground but I shall try to define the subjects of the debate into two main streams. There have been those who take the view that we should not adjourn tomorrow. Generally, they say that we should not adjourn then because there are some outstanding issues affecting our conduct of foreign affairs and defence either now or in the period four years ago which ought to be explained because of their seriousness. It has been impossible to listen to their arguments without realising that there is a great deal in them.
In the issues of some years ago in which the right hon. and learned Gentle-


man who is about to address the House was personally very much concerned, the question is whether certain meetings took place between him and statesmen of other countries, meetings which I understand in the past he has denied took place but which at any rate one of the statesmen of other countries concerned seems to imply by his letter did take place. This issue is a very serious reflection and one which ought to be settled.
If it were true that M. Christan Pineau's letter about Mr. Finer's book carries the implication that he is not prepared to say so but that, in fact, the meeting took place, that inescapably means that this House was grossly misled by the Foreign Secretary of the time, a time of great danger to our country. It would bring into question the Minister's personal credit. That goes without saying, but the whole credit of the Government, which still contains some of the same people concerned, is also called into question.
This is at a moment when we are again involved in difficulties in the Middle East, difficulties which the Prime Minister told us this afternoon were at least potentially as inflammable now as they were then. Obviously, to have that reflection cast upon the same Ministers handling our affairs would be a dangerous thing for our soldiers and for the whole nation. It has been impossible to listen to that discussion without realising that this is a very serious matter.
The other matter concerning the defence argument is the need to disentangle the obviously conflicting views of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations about the urgency of political arrangements being made about Aden even while military operations go on. This obviously is tremendously urgent and is directly addressed to the Motion whether we should rise tomorrow. Those military operations are going on at this moment and one senior Minister intimately concerned, the Secretary of State for Defence, takes the view—he clearly did the other day in this House—that we cannot talk about political solutions until the military operations are finally brought to a successful conclusion.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is busily trying to arrange the politics in the middle of the military operations. We are likely to have over the next days and weeks, to put it mildly, a very troubled and disrupted situation. It is difficult for us to have much confidence in the Secretary of State for Defence in his conduct of responsibility when we know that his fellow Minister has been out there putting the exactly opposite point of view to the Southern Arabian statesmen.
I found it extremely impressive that unless that can be cleared up this afternoon it is a powerful argument for us not to rise tomorrow. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will have something to say to us on the first issue, in which his own reputation as well as that of his colleagues is so heavily involved, and I hope he will also have something to say on the second issue. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations this afternoon said, in the presence of the Secretary of State for Defence, that the view, it was thought, that the Secretary of State for Defence was taking was not the view that he took. Last week the Secretary of State for Defence described that view as "waffle". We understood from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that his view prevailed. The Leader of the House has to say something about that this afternoon.
There are powerful reasons on both scores for cur not rising tomorrow. It is known that quite early after we come back from the Recess we shall be having a foreign affairs debate which certainly will range wide enough to cover both these issues. We on these benches feel that both these issues will have to be raised. If they are not cleared up this afternoon and the Government intend to postpone their discussion, I give notice that they will form part of the wide-ranging debate that we shall seek to stage on the occasion of the foreign affairs debate. We shall have to refer to these matters from time to time outside the House in the meantime if the Government send us away, but when we come back I shall be willing for that course to be taken, having served notice on the Government.
That was the first side of it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that we


should not rise for these outstanding reasons. I have given my reasons why, even if the Leader of the House did not answer this afternoon, I would not hold the House back. There are many other opportunities for us to ensure that the people know about these issues, and we can take them up by means of a foreign affairs debate as soon as we return.
We listened to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) in a very brief speech, and to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) in a speech which could hardly be described in the same terms. Their point of view, which was equally interesting to me, as I intimated in an intervention, was that we should go tomorrow but come back as soon as we can because for a very long time a host of important issues has been neglected by the Government, the Leader of the House has failed in his duty by not bringing forward a whole list of very important matters, and that in any case, if I may complete the indictment which the two hon. Gentlemen made clearly and firmly, even if the Government had brought those matters forward for debate, no one was interested in their answers; it was the answers of the Opposition that they wanted. They argued that we should come back so that I and my right hon. Friend could put before the country views which seem relevant to this issue.

Mr. Lagden: That is entirely wrong. I did not convey that to the House, even if I conveyed it to the right hon. Gentleman. I said that I and my constituents were anxious to know the answer to a very straightforward and simple question: if returned to power, would the Labour Party nationalise the Ford motor works?

Mr. Brown: Even though we have had new Rulings from the Chair, that would hardly have been held relevant to the question of the Adjournment of the House for Whitsun. It was because the hon. Gentleman did not put it that way that he got away with it in the first place. I am dealing with the way he put it in the first place and not the second.

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose—

Mr. Brown: I cannot give way. I listened to 58 minutes of the hon. Mem-

ber for Louth, who subsequently interrupted every other speaker at least twice. I have been speaking for only a few minutes. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must be a little understanding before starting the interrupting game.
I shall come back to the issues which the two hon. Gentlemen thought should be debated and on which the views of the Labour Party rather than those of the Government were, in their view, of crucial importance. But before I do that I should like to say one or two other things to the hon. Member for Louth about his speech. I found it entertaining. As I indicated at the end, I have some doubts whether using our time in this manner persuades those who hear us in the public galleries or those who read us in the newspapers that we are doing the job which they sent us here to do. However, as a performance, I found it entertaining. I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. J. Grimond); it certainly qualified the hon. Gentleman to go on the halls if at any time he should decide that there was no future here for him, or his constituents decided that.

Sir C. Osborne: We will go together.

Mr. Brown: If we do that, it will ensure the hon. Gentleman full houses. I observe a certain amount of native caution in the hon. Gentleman in trying to make that provision.
However entertaining we may have found it, one or two serious matters arose. The hon. Gentleman was very free in telling us what he resented. I should like to make it clear, since I could not persuade any other steps to be taken about it, that I deeply resented my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) being called a white-livered man, and being allowed to be called a white-livered man. I gather, since nothing happened, that that must be technically in order. I deeply resented it not only on behalf of my hon. Friend personally, because he is a very fine man, but also because I do not think it is the sort of thing we ought to do in this House and not withdraw it when we have done it.
I was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman call my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) a damned fool. When I heard my hon.


and learned Friend answering him back, I felt sure that he would preface his remarks by saying "As one damned fool to another". If he had, at least the second part of the statement would have been right. However entertaining it might have been described in parts, and whatever is said about it tomorrow, I repeat that that sort of thing ought not to become common practice even in the name of good humour and entertainment, because it does not have that ring outside.
There is another and perhaps more serious point. The hon. Gentleman went on to regale us by reading from newspapers passages for which he took no personal responsibility—nor could he—about what was supposed to have happened at lunches that one or other of us on these benches were supposed to have attended with named or unnamed—as the hon. Member termed them—tycoons. We listened to long passages—in a debate which it used to be ruled should not be in detail—about the nature of the brandy or the name of the cigars—all hearsay, all gossip, all details for which the hon. Member could not personally take responsibility.
I was not clear whether the argument was that we on these benches should not meet businessmen, whether it was that every time we met we must seek authority to meet, or whether it was that every time we met we should disclose to the House of Commons what was said.

Sir C. Osborne: Sir C. Osbornerose—

Mr. Brown: I am explaining what I am not clear about. We listened to 58 minutes from the hon. Gentleman. All I can do is to take what was not clear at the time. What was said imported all the things that I have mentioned.
It may well be that in the present situation we are the only people which the business world wants to see. It may well be that the business world never speaks to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House privately. It may well be, therefore, that there is nothing to ask them about. However, it appears to be put forward as a serious argument that we should return earlier so that my right hon. Friend can explain whether it is gossip in the newspapers or true. This was seriously demanded. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman went so far as to say

that it was my right hon. Friend's duty to deny any gossip that appears in the newspapers. This argument occupied a large part of his 58 minutes.
It is not long ago since Sir Hugh Fraser threw a very large lunch in Glasgow for a number of businessmen to meet the Prime Minister in order to raise a lot of money. On the same basis, if the hon. Gentleman has his way, can we, on the day that we come back earlier, have a disclosure by the Prime Minister, who was at that lunch, of what pledges he gave those present and how much money they subscribed to Conservative Party funds? If the hon. Member for Louth nods in agreement, I shall be extremely surprised.
As a matter of fact, I would be quite prepared to come back a day earlier and use my influence with my right hon. Friend to be, as forthcoming as the hon. Gentleman likes if we really could have a list of all the meetings that Ministers are currently having with businessmen, the sums of money that are being obtained from the businessmen and the pledges which are being given to the businessmen in return for the sums of money as a fair bargain.
Although it took up a good deal of time, I do not believe that it was as serious an argument as all that. But perhaps the Leader of the House would tell us how far he is prepared to espouse the cause taken up by his hon. Friend in a speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave every sign of enjoying. I should be prepared to talk to him elsewhere afterwards about how far we can co-operate and give the particulars which his hon. Friend wanted.
I come to the issues which the hon. Gentleman advanced as reasons why we should come, back early. I have been considering what to advise others to do, and what to do myself, in view of the hon. Gentleman's statement that he was prepared to go into the Lobby. It is a little difficult to see how he is to do that, because he remembered to make a speech but forgot to table the Amendment. However, I have no doubt that there is some way in which that can be put right. We have to consider what we should do when he and the hon. Member for Hornchurch invite us into the Lobby to vote against the Motion.
The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to come back eight working days earlier. I should point out to the House that I gave up listing the issues when he reached 13, because if each issue was to have a day devoted to it the hon. Gentleman was getting himself into a hopeless tangle. The issues were these—automation, and industrial relations, immigration, Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, Cyprus, taxation and incomes policy, the relationship of public ownership to private enterprise, and Army recruitment. Those were the ones I got. There were others. I repeat that, since the hon. Gentleman was asking for only eight days but was suggesting 13 days' work, I gave up writing them down.
The hon. Gentleman's case for this was, first, that these issues are not being adequately and properly discussed in the House at the moment. That is patently clear. The responsibility for that is that of the Government. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's case was that the country is interested in what we have to say about it rather than what the Government have to say about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is also patently clear. Anybody who has been round the country recently, who has been to by-elections and public meetings, knows clearly that this is the case. The people demonstrate it by the meetings they attend and by the attention they give us as compared with the attention they give to the other side.

Mr. Lagden: Mr. Lagden rose—

Mr. Brown: No. Our position on this is clear. We are putting our case to the country at all kinds of meetings in all the by-elections that we manage to force the Government unwillingly into. Tonight we shall hear the verdict of a substantial part of the country. It will be very interesting for hon. Members opposite when the verdict is declared.
My own view is that the case the hon. Gentleman made was not a case for coming back a week early. This is why I shall in the end advise my hon. Friends not to support his plea to come back earlier. The case he made out was a case for dissolution. He proved up to the hilt, by what he said and by the performance itself, that this Parliament is dead, that this Government are in-

competent, that they pick the wrong issues, that they are no longer really a source of interest to the country outside, let alone inspiration, and that it is what we are proposing to do that the people are interested in.
If that is true—that is the case the hon. Gentleman made—the place to deal with that is at the hustings. Let us go to the people. Let us put the case before them and use the hon. Gentleman's speech, as we clearly shall, as one of the arguments supporting our case. Let us put the case to the people, and let them judge. Let them vote. The voters in the four by-elections which are being held today should not be the only ones to have this privilege. The entire nation should now be asked to pass judgment on a Parliament so dead that it spent this afternoon on what was thought to be entertainment of the halls kind instead of debating one of the important issues which the hon. Gentleman said should be debated.
This is a dead Parliament. The hon. hon. Gentleman's condemnation of his own Government was that they are impotent and no longer interesting. He further said that we are clearly the people from whom the country wants to hear. I advise my hon. Friends not to support the hon. Gentleman, but we call upon the Government to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament immediately.

6.54 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I think that I can reply very briefly to the debate. I agree with the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that it has been a wide-ranging debate, and I think that it has, on the whole, certainly in parts, been an entertaining one.
What the right hon. Gentleman said was quite inconsistent with what his hon. Friends said beforehand. The argument which was being advanced by them all the time, particularly by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), was that there were all sorts of topics which we ought to be discussing, that there was a lot of useful work for the House to do, and that, therefore, we should not have such a long Adjournment.

Mr. Stonehouse: The Leader of the House will at least acknowledge that we all agree that the dissolution should come and that we should have a General Election.

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly agree that after the Dissolution there will be a General Election. The hon. Gentleman has me with him on that point completely.
Having said, as hon. Members opposite did last time we debated a similar Motion, and as the right hon. Gentleman did today, that it is no good the House returning at all, on the whole the tenor of the debate has been that there are a very great many important topics for us to discuss.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is not here. He has explained to me why he cannot be here. However, I must say this about his speech, even in his absence. It would be difficult to imagine a speech more likely to add to instability in the Middle East. He talked about an inquiry on Suez, as did other hon. Members. I have no intention of adding to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about that today, for the reasons stated by him.
The hon. Member for Dudley then talked about Aden. We have heard today that a conference is to take place next month to deal with constitutional matters. I think that that was generally welcomed by the House and that it is wise to await its results and then have a debate. The hon. Gentleman can raise his point in that debate, if he thinks that any useful purpose would be served.
I have some sympathy with what the the hon. Member for Wednesbury said about a debate on foreign affairs. I intend to arrange for a two-day debate

as soon as I can after we return, having regard to the business of the House.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) made a very entertaining speech. I liked his list of topics for discussion. I hope that we shall succeed in debating them all, in one way or another, in June and July. I think that my hon. Friend will come back refreshed and reinvigorated after a fortnight's holiday and be all the better able to deal with those matters then.
I have to consider the general interests of the House as a whole, the health and the convenience of hon. Members. There are some who really need a holiday and a little rest. I do not say that they actually need medical attention, but they would be all the better for a rest. There is one hon. Gentleman, not on this side of the House, whom we think of particularly in that connection.
Then I have to think of the convenience of hon. Members and the other tasks they have to perform, and the work that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will have to be doing in their constituencies if they are to hold them at the next General Election. I therefore ask the House, in accordance with the precedents—seven out of the last eight times—to agree that the House should be adjourned for the time that I have suggested.

Mr. Paget: In view of the charges brought against the right hon. and learned Gentleman's integrity by right hon. and hon. Members, does he really intend to sit down without dealing with them?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 2nd June.

Orders of the Day — MALAWI INDEPENDENCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF BRITISH NATIONALITY ACTS.)

7.0 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): I beg to move, in page 1, line 23,

Orders of the Day — HIRE-PURCHASE (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(PROTECTION OF PURCHASERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES.)

5
(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a motor vehicle has been let under a hire-purchase agreement, or has been agreed to be sold under a conditional sale agreement, and, at a time before the property in the vehicle has become vested in the hirer or buyer, he disposes of the vehicle to another person.


(2) Where the disposition referred to in the preceding subsection is to a private purchaser, and he is a purchaser of the motor vehicle in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement, that disposition shall have effect as if the title of the owner or seller to the vehicle had been vested in the hirer or buyer immediately before that disposition.


10
(3) Where the person to whom the disposition referred to in subsection (1) of this section is made (in this subsection referred to as "the original purchaser") is a trade or finance purchaser, then if the person who is the first private purchaser of the motor vehicle after that disposition (in this section referred to as "the first private purchaser") is a purchaser of the vehicle in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement, the disposition of the vehicle to the first private purchaser shall have effect as if the title of the owner or seller to the vehicle had been vested in the hirer or buyer immediately before he disposed of it to the original purchaser.


15
(4) Where, in a case falling within the last preceding subsection,—


20
(a) the disposition whereby the first private purchaser becomes a purchaser of the motor vehicle in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement is itself a letting under a hire-purchase agreement, and


25
(b) the person who is the owner in relation to that agreement disposes of the 25 vehicle to the first private purchaser, or a person claiming under him, by way of transferring to him the property in the vehicle in pursuance of a provision in the agreement in that behalf,


30
the disposition referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection (whether the person to whom it is made is then a purchaser in good faith and without notice of the original hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement or not) shall, as well as the disposition referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection, have effect as mentioned in the last preceding subsection.


35
(5) The preceding provisions of this section shall have effect—


(a) notwithstanding anything in section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 (which 35 relates to the sale of goods by a person who is not the owner), but


(b) without prejudice to the provisions of the Factors Act (as defined by section 62(1) of the said Act of 1893) or of any other enactment enabling the apparent owner of goods to dispose of them as if he were the true owner of the goods.

to leave out "and 1958" and to insert "to 1964".

This is a technical Amendment to ensure that references in the British Nationality Act, 1964, to a country mentioned in Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act, 1948, include a reference to Malawi.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

40
(6) Nothing in this section shall exonerate the hirer or buyer from any liability (whether criminal or civil) to which he would be subject apart from this section; and, in a case where the hirer or buyer disposes of the motor vehicle to a trade or finance purchaser, nothing in this section shall exonerate—


45
(a) that trade or finance purchaser, or


(b) any other trade or finance purchaser who becomes a purchaser of the vehicle and is not a person claiming under the first private purchaser,


from any liability (whether criminal or civil) to which he would be subject apart from this section.—[Mr. D. Price.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.2 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
It might be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the following two proposed new Clauses standing in the name of my right hon. Friend, entitled "Presumptions relating to dealings with motor vehicles" and "Interpretation of Part III", since the three go together. They will replace the present Part III and, at the appropriate time, I shall move to leave out Clauses 27 to 31.
Part III of the Bill is concerned with protecting the man who buys a car in good faith and later finds that, because it was the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, he has not title to it. The existing provisions of Part III proposed to safeguard him by means of a system of licensing cards issued to hirers of cars, the log books being held by the finance houses. This scheme was criticised, particularly by finance house interests, on grounds of inconvenience and expense.
The House will recall that on Second Reading my right hon. Friend and I said that our minds were not closed to alternative methods of achieving the same object, but we made it clear that we were determined to deal with the matter in this Bill. We made the important proviso that any alternative scheme, to be acceptable to us, must offer the innocent buyer as good protection as the scheme in the Bill as it stood. In Committee a new Clause was moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) embodying a scheme which did, in principle, meet this requirement. This scheme was, in essence, very simple; where a car on hire-purchase was sold by the hirer to a person who bought it in good faith, not knowing it was on hire-

purchase, the purchaser would get a good title. We were informed that this scheme was acceptable to the Finance Houses Association, whose members conduct the greater part of hire-purchase business in cars. This was, of course, a vital point in considering a scheme which would debar them from recovering their cars after fraudulent disposals.
This scheme offered a simpler way of dealing with the problem and, given that it was acceptable in finance house circles, I said in Committee that we were glad to accept it in principle and undertook that, if the hon. Member withdrew his Clause, the Government would table provisions on Report to give effect to the scheme. I added that we had had only a short time in which to study the scheme but that I thought there were certain respects in which we should have to make improvements, in particular to strengthen the position of an innocent purchaser where there was no evidence to show that he or any other person had acted in bad faith.
The three new Clauses we are now considering carry out this undertaking. In drafting they are entirely fresh: but in substance they give effect to the scheme discussed in Committee. Since, unavoidably, they are somewhat complicated, it may be helpful if I go through them and explain how they work.
The first two subsections of the first Clause contain what is really the basic provision; that where a hirer sells the car to a person who buys it in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement, that person gets a good title—or, to be strictly accurate, as good a title as was possessed by the finance house who had let the car to the fraudulent hirer.
Under the Clause discussed in Committee, there was to be no protection for a purchaser who was a motor dealer or a body corporate. I said then that I thought that that went a little wide. The


scheme is for the protection of the public and, quite reasonably, the finance houses do not think that motor dealers or finance houses should be so protected, since they can and should be on their guard against buying cars which are on hire-purchase.
The first two subsections, therefore, apply only where the fraudulent hirer sells to a private purchaser—and this, to anticipate the definition in subsection (2) of the third new Clause, means someone who is neither a motor dealer nor a finance house. Subsection (3) deals with the case where the fraudulent hirer sells to a trade or finance purchaser; that is, a motor dealer or finance house. The Clause does not protect such a purchaser and he remains, as now, liable to the true owner, for detinue or conversion. The same applies to another trade or finance purchaser to whom he resells the car. But the first private purchaser will again get a good title, provided he buys in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement.
In either case, whether the private purchaser has bought the car from the fraudulent hirer or from a trade or finance purchaser, the title he gets can then be passed on like any other title. The result is that the innocent buyer, or anyone claiming under him, is protected, but a motor dealer or finance house who buys from the hirer is not. The only other provision of the Clause to which I need draw attention is subsection (6), which makes it clear that the criminal and civil liabilities of the hirer who fraudulently disposes of a car, and a trade or finance purchaser who takes it from him, are not affected.
I turn to the second Clause—"Presumptions relating to dealings with motor vehicles." In practice, an innocent purchaser, just because he is innocent, may likely not be able to trace back the channel through which the car came to him. To make the provisions work as intended certain presumptions are necessary To take a likely situation, a man who has bought a car is approached by a finance house, which tells him that the car belongs to the finance house and was let on hire-purchase Our man, who perhaps bought following a newspaper advertisement, may well not be able to produce the person who sold the car to him and the first presumption, in subsection (2), there-

fore, is that that person was the hirer. This presumption operates equally where the man who has actually got the car relies for his title on claiming under an earlier private person who bought in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement.
The next presumptions deal with the case where it is proved that the man who has got the car or, where appropriate, such a previous purchaser, bought the car from someone other than the hirer. Under subsection (3) it is presumed that the hirer sold to a private purchaser, who bought in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement and that his title has been transmitted. Subsection (4) deals similarly with the case where it is proved that the hirer sold the car to a motor dealer or finance house and makes similar presumptions regarding the first sale to a private purchaser.
To sum up, the effect of the presumptions is that it will be for the finance house to upset the title of the man in possession of the car by showing that the first private purchaser—whether he bought direct from the hirer or through trade channels—did not buy in good faith or bought with notice of the hire-purchase agreement, or that the title is in some other way defective; for example, because the car has been stolen. The third new Clause is concerned with interpretation and contains the definitions and other provisions necessary for the new Part III.
This, briefly, is what these Clauses do. Many hon. Members will have had cases brought to their attention in which innocent people have suffered real hardship as the victims of fraudulent sales by hirers of cars. The need to help people in this situation is clear and I am glad that, with the assistance of finance house interests, it has been possible to bring before the House the proposals contained in these Clauses.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: We on this side of the House welcome these new Clauses. We think that basically they are good in their purpose and in their fashion of achieving that purpose. What we are witnessing now is an occasion when the law is coming to the rescue of innocent purchasers of vehicles which are subject to hire-purchase agreements.
The Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged generously, and I think, if I may say so, accurately, that this reform in the law, as we regard it, derives, in the narrative of proceedings on the Bill, from proposals that we had the privilege to put forward in Committee. There are certain observations about the Clauses which I think it right to make. I feel that perhaps it would not be desirable for the House to think that we were dealing here with what can properly be regarded as a long-term or permanent settlement of the rather difficult issues that arise in this kind of case. In the course of our consideration of the Bill I have had occasion to mention one or two features of that kind and I feel it right to do so very shortly again.
It seems to me that it must be regarded in some sort as an interim provision when one bears certain factors in mind. As I understand it, when the subject is analysed it is found that what makes this provision possible is the fact that the finance houses have indicated their readiness to meet the relevant risk and to do so by way of their own indemnity scheme. That, so far as it goes, is an admirable circumstance—I have no doubt about that, and it is very welcome—but it does, to the extent that that kind of condition is implicit in the workability of the Bill, rather underline the impermanent character of what we are now legislating. By impermanent, I only mean that it reveals that we are considering here a branch of the law which very much needs and awaits clarification and consolidation, not only in respect of the particular items arising under these Clauses but more generally affecting hire purchase and also the sale of goods.
One has to remember that the effect of the Bill is that the new law will cover every case of hire purchase of a vehicle, including the case of the private individual who enters into a hire-purchase agreement and who may see his car, by virtue of what we are providing for in this new Clause, pass from a hirer to a third party who will acquire the title, and the owner, on this hypothesis, who has entered into the private hire-purchase agreement, will be left with his remedy against the hirer but his car will have gone. He is quite likely, either through ignorance or for other reasons, not to have available the

benefits of indemnity that are very properly, naturally and correctly available to the finance houses, and yet we are legislating for such a one, and I think that the House should bear that in mind. All the while that we welcome these Clauses, the House should bear that in mind, and see in that again an indication that this can only be regarded as a proposal to fill a period of time before we get more comprehensive legislation in this field.
7.15 p.m.
There is one other factor that I wish to mention. The change that we are making in the law here, which the Government propose and which we are agreeing with and have really initiated upstairs, may well have the effect—I think this must be recognised—of tending to make purchasers of cars less careful and circumspect when they buy cars. If the law were, as it is not under this provision, that the good title passed only to a purchaser, in this hypothesis of the car being subject to hire purchase—that is, that the good title passed only to a purchaser who made reasonable inquiries to ensure that the car was not subject to hire purchase—there would be something to be said for that.
Study of the matters arising under the Bill has given to hon. Members concerned with it the most interesting opportunities—perhaps I should speak for myself—of studying the operation of a large number of activities related to the business of hire purchase. Few things have been more impressive than an acquaintance, albeit much too short an acquaintance, with the operations of what is called H.P.I.—an organization which runs an effective and nearly wholly comprehensive system of registration of hire purchase of vehicles and carries out a most impressive public service of which Government Departments, the police and others take advantage in one way and another.
We have in a body of that kind, at any rate in embryo, a kind of fabric of universal registration of cars subject to hire purchase which might usefully have been built into a provision of the kind that the House is now contemplating. As it is, the point is that we are really going rather in the other direction because in making this provision that in the circumstances with which the


Clause is concerned the purchaser gets a good title we are, if anything—and the more time passes the more I think this will become apparent—encouraging purchasers to be more casual and rather less circumspect than they have been hitherto.
What the Bill is doing—this also should be clearly understood—is, in my view, somewhat drastic in character. It is saying that good title can pass from someone who does not possess it, and it does so without the long-term legislative safeguards which I have suggested might have been appropriate. It does so, however, at the risk of purchasers being less careful.
Nevertheless, what the Government have done to deal with this problem is basically right. We are quite sure that it is better than the original Part III, but the proposal is drastic in providing that someone who does not possess good title can, in effect, pass good title. I acknowledge that that method possesses a certain healthy robustness and pragmatism.
I appreciate that at this stage I cannot move—nor do I at present desire to move—our two short Amendments to the first new Clause, but I understand that all these matters are now under discussion and, if I might just mention the purpose of the Amendments now, as that may be the most convenient way of dealing with the matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can do that. We must get something read a Second time before seeking to amend it. I am afraid that we must stick to that rule.

Mr. Irvine: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I understand that I would be out of order in seeking now even to draw attention to the merits of these Amendments?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Irvine: Then I have really completed my comments on the new Clause. There will be an opportunity later of bringing before the House rather minor improvements—to which, none the less, we attach some importance, and which derive directly from the character of the changes that the Clause proposes. They will be dealt with in due course.

Overall, we welcome these proposals We think that this is a very marked improvement on the original Part III of the Bill. The propositions have, as I have tried to indicate, a practical and pragmatic quality that should be welcome to both sides of the House.

Mr. David Weitzman: I am a little alarmed by this proposed new Clause. I agree that it makes an advance and that the innocent purchaser ought to be protected in some way, but I very much agree with some of the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) about the character of the Clause. It goes rather too far on the other side. It is certainly right that an innocent purchaser should be protected as far as we can possibly protect him, but are we not now doing an injustice to the owner of the car?
The material words are that
…a purchaser of the motor vehicle in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement…
is protected. I recognise that the court might well say that if a purchaser paid a small price that might be evidence on which the court could say that he had not purchased in good faith. It might also be said that the purchaser ought, in certain circumstances, to inquire into the hire-purchase agreement. But it seems to me that the Proper way of protecting the purchaser should be to make quite sure that in buying a vehicle of this kind, he does not, as it were, close his eyes.
It might well be that a purchaser in good faith, on the evidence, might buy a car on hire purchase where a considerable number of instalments were due for a comparatively small sum, and make no inquiries into whether or not there was a hire-purchase agreement at all. In those circumstances, I think it wrong that the owner should suffer. There should surely have been an obligation on the part of the purchaser to make some sort of inquiry before he concluded the deal of purchase.
I merely make that observation. I recognise that this new Clause is a step in the right direction, though I believe that it goes too far. Like my hon. and


learned Friend, I hope that this is something in the nature of a temporary provision, and that, when we come to overhaul hire-purchase law, attention may be paid to this point so that the justice of the case might be met, and the owner properly protected.

Sir Eric Errington: I support this new Clause, though with some degree of diffidence. The original Part III of the Bill involved a very large number of registration books, and the scheme would have had to be delayed for a number of months before it would have been effective. I am glad to see that that idea has gone, but I am not altogether happy about this Clause or the one that we are discussing with it. It is unfortunate that there will not be an opportunity for them to be more particularly examined.
I do not think that the question of an indemnity arises, because whether or not the principal people involved in these matters—the finance houses associations—have an indemnity scheme, it may not be applicable to everyone. A great deal of faith must be placed in the H.P.I. registration scheme to which the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) referred. That scheme very nearly ties up the position, except for those people who are, perhaps, not experienced in these matters—and those people probably provide the danger.
My main complaint is that these new Clauses are of considerable complexity. To me, at any rate, they are not very clear on the reading of them. I am not sure that the point that has just been made is not true, in the sense that one is not perfectly satisfied as to where the onus lies. As a typical example of what I mean, I quote subsection (5) of the second new Clause:
Without prejudice to any other mode of proof, where in any proceedings a party thereto admits a fact, that fact shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken as against him to be proved in relation to those proceedings.
The average individual, even though advised as to his legal position, might have some difficulty in deciding exactly how he stood in regard to that matter. However, there are difficulties in any attempt to deal with this very important matter. This seems to be a genuine attempt to deal with it. I am sorry that

we cannot discuss the subject in greater detail but, with that reservation, I support the new Clause.

7.30 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I, too, am in favour of the new Clauses. They represent a courageous attempt to fill what would otherwise have been a lacuna in the Bill, as I think that it was always assumed that the idea of logbooks, and so on, would have been unworkable. This is a terribly late stage in the Bill for us to have to consider this matter for the first time. We are all voicing misgivings which we cannot clearly formulate that there must be some snags here and there and that there are some real difficulties on which some hon. Members have touched.
The intention expressed in the new Clause entitled "Protection of Purchasers of Motor Vehicles" is admirable. All three new Clauses hang together, but the trouble that we shall have when the Bill becomes an Act will be centred on the Clause entitled "Presumptions relating to dealings with motor vehicles", to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) has referred.
The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said that undoubtedly there would be a tendency for the extra burden of making good loss to fall on finance houses. That is fairly evident. This will, I suppose, make hire purchase that bit more expensive all round. I do not think that we could have this series of new Clauses without running that risk. The real difficulty is that they put forward an idea which many people may not have thought of before. People may be encouraged, by inference, to see whether they can start a new form of crime which the new Clause will not be able to catch up with.
Suppose that a slightly crooked finance company and a slightly crooked buyer act in collusion. The buyer keeps his apparent good faith absolutely unsullied because it will be extraordinarily difficult to prove bad faith if the man actually has mens rea but is successfully keeping it under cover. I therefore feel that there will be great difficulty in defining and establishing good faith. This might


wreck the whole of the admirable intention of the Clause.
There is no direct reference in the Bill to the arrangements by certain finance houses to set up the organisation known as Hire Purchase Information or to the suggestion made from time to time in our debates that there should be an indemnity scheme. There is no reference to the steps that a prospective purchaser should take to ensure that the car in question was free of encumbrances. I should like to know whether the Government have any thoughts on this subject, and whether, without committing them to legislative form, they have any intentions which they would like to see carried out in order that the finance houses supply the machinery for their own benefit so that both information and indemnity are arranged without it having to be laid down statutorily.
I should like to know whether it is the Government's view that this requires, as it seems to me to require, the finance houses to set their collective house in order so that there is one authority for information and indemnity of three quite separate trade associations and a certain number of activists on the outside. Presumably the activists on the outside will have no share in any indemnity contemplated.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to tell us how he expects this to work in detail, because once we leave the matter here, that is the end of it.

Mr. George Darling: I join hon. Members on both sides in thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for carrying out his promise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member desires to move his Amendment, he may create a difficulty by speaking now.

Mr. Darling: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) will move the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: But he has already spoken to this Question.

Mr. Darling: Then I had better move the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) may be able to move the Amendment. His name is to it.

Mr. Darling: I will move the Amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Then I must call somebody else at this stage.

Mr. D. Price: I hope that I will be in order in replying to one or two points.
The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) referred to the question of H.P.I. and people making proper inquiries. We considered quite a number of alternatives to Part III, and one was simply to allow good title where people had made an inquiry of H.P.I. But that did not seem to us to go far enough because it did not deal with the person who answered an advertisement in a newspaper or whose neighbour offered him a motor car. Suppose that he answers an advertisement in the newspaper. Mr. John Jones says, "Here is a motor car for sale and here is the log book with the name of John Jones on it". The title seems good.
This was particularly a case which we had in mind. The person who knows about H.P.I. will make inquiries. But he is not the person with whom we are dealing. Much of the legislation dealing with consumer protection is not concerned with the enlightened citizen. It deals with the person who is not aware of the existence of bodies like H.P.I. He is the one we are trying to cover. This is why we had these elaborate arrangements in Part III which the new Clause is to replace.
I cannot help feeling that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) preferred the old Part III to what we are proposing now. When we conceived the idea of Part III we had his point very much in mind. As the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill has conceded, and as I have conceded, what we are now proposing involves a certain surrender by the finance houses of what would normally be a right. Because we did not feel it right for us in Parliament to impose this on the finance houses, we started out with Part III and the rather complicated system of log books.
This is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), who asked why this was introduced at such a late stage. It was clear to


us in the Government that this was a possibility, but it was equally clear that we should not have been entitled to ask the House to approve it until the finance houses said that they preferred this arrangement to the arrangement in Part III by which they would not have surrendered any of their normal common law rights and sale of goods rights as to good title. However, they felt that this was more convenient, less elaborate and less expensive. Therefore, hon. Members on both sides in Committee felt that it would be proper to do this. It is, as the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill said, a pragmatic approach.
It may be said that this raises all sorts of issues about good title, but these will primarily arise on the review of the Sale of Goods Act, which is not No. 1 but No. 2 in the batting order for the implementation of the Molony Report. We can possibly leave the point there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) would tempt me into expressing an opinion on whether finance houses would be better organised in one trade association rather than three. Hon. Members on both sides are not tempted into saying whether craft unions or general workers unions are to be preferred and therefore I do not think my hon. Friend would expect me to express an opinion on the point that he raised. It is obvious that the major houses will, through their trade associations, run a collective indemnity scheme. The finance house which wishes to go its own way will be entitled to do so and will make its own insurance arrangements as it sees fit.
I end by echoing the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill as to the competence of H.P.I. I very much hope that through the work of the Citizens' Advice Bureau, quite apart from any continuing publicity which can be given over the whole field of hire purchase, the coverage will become even more complete than it is already.

Sir E. Errington: May I ask my hon. Friend whether it would be possible, either through Government sources or through an arrangement with the Finance Houses Association, to have a rather more simple document to illustrate to people the function of H.P.I.? It is interesting, as probably my hon. Friend

will know that H.P.I. works not on names, but purely on registration numbers. If this could be communicated generally, it might be of value.

Mr. Price: The quick reply is that I indicated on Second Reading, in response, I believe, to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), that we were considering how the new provisions of the Bill, when it reached the Statute Book, should be publicised. I shall be happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the point which he has raised. We have not, however, quite made up our minds on the general question, which will cover the particular point raised by my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: The first Amendment to the proposed Clause is that in line 8. I hope that I did not mislead the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). If he moves the Amendment, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) can speak to it, but it will be on another Question.

Mr. Darling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that we have now cleared that up.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 8, to leave out from "effect" to the end of line 9 and to insert:
to vest the title of the owner or seller to the vehicle in the purchaser".
I suggest that we take, at the same time, the following similar Amendment in line 16 of the new Clause.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we must; the second might fall.

Mr. Darling: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The two Amendments cover a point raised in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). When the original Clause was before the Committee, and which we withdrew so that the new Clauses could be brought forward, my hon. and learned Friend pointed out that he was rather upset about the fact, to which he has again referred, that we were proposing to write into the law the principle that a hirer who has no right to the title of a car


which he has just purchased should possess that right; the person who sold the car to him had no right to sell it and, therefore, the title could not pass.
The Government are, however, proceeding to write into the law the curious provision that the final purchaser can retain title to a car which the person from whom he bought it had no right to pass on. To overcome that difficulty, our Amendments propose to alter the wording of subsections (2) and (3) of the new Clause. I move the Amendment quite shortly, because it goes into the realm of legal discussion which can be dealt with far more capably by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. D. Price: I follow, I believe, the argument of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), but I do not think that the change which he proposes is necessary. It would not have the effect that he imagines. Subsection (2) of the new Clause provides that if a hirer disposes of a vehicle to a private purchaser, who buys in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement, that disposition shall have effect—and these are the words that the hon. Member seeks to omit—
as if the title of the owner…to the vehicle had been vested in the hirer…immediately before that disposition.
7.45 p.m.
With the hon. Member's Amendments, the effect of the disposition to the private purchaser would be to vest the owner's title in him. I do not see how the proposed words, which go further than the wording of the new Clause, retreat from that position. I am glad to notice that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) appears to support my contention. In our view, the subsections are satisfactory for the purpose which I have explained.
Two points arise from examining the wording of the Amendment. "Disposition" is defined in subsection (1) of new Clause No. 3 to include conditional sales and lettings on hire purchase in those cases. If the words proposed by the Amendment were used the title would pass at such dispositions. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Member for Hillsborough wants.
The second Amendment would also have the effect that in the case where the hirer had sold the vehicle to a motor dealer or finance house, the first private purchaser would get a good title even if the vehicle had been stolen between its acquisition from the hirer and its sale to the private purchaser. The wording of these things is tricky, but I am advised that the Amendment would not achieve what the hon. Member wants and would go even further than the words in the relevant subsections of the Government's new Clause. The words which we have put down enable only as good a title to pass as the original owner had. In other words, if the article is stolen, it is not converted to a better title. I hope that with these slightly complicated comments, the hon. Member will feel that the point is covered.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: As the House will understand, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) for moving the Amendment and the fashion in which he did it. My only regret is that his arguments for the Amendment did not prevail, as they should have done, in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is true that doubts upon the merits appear to be expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), and, of course, one gives careful consideration to that.
Perhaps I may try to make clear our aim in the Amendments. In my observations on the Government's new Clause, I said that we were doing something anomalous in making statutory provision for the passing of good title in a chattel from somebody not having it to a purchaser of it, the vendor who was thus passing title being not merely somebody without title but someone who ex-hypothesi is in all likelihood acting unfairly and deceitfully.
That is a rather drastic provision to set out in the law and it is an anomaly. In terms of legislative expression, it should be dealt with with great caution. The manner of dealing with it creates anxiety. The manner of dealing with it is to go out of its way to provide—unnecessarily, I should have thought—that the hirer, the man who acts badly and


incorrectly in the hypothesis which I have put forward, shall be treated, notionally at least, as a matter of law as having the title vested in him.
I may be quite wrong about this, but I do not see the necessity for that. That is the point we are on. As I say, there may be a factor which makes my proposition invalid, and the moment I recognise that that is so, I assure the hon. Gentleman, I will acknowledge it, but I do not see it now. It seems to me that the same effect takes place if, in what is rather an unusual type of provision, it is laid down, not that the disposer, the vendor, the hirer has got a good title at any point in the disposition, but that when a disposition from such a hirer takes place a good title accrues in the purchaser.
The Parliamentary Secretary may well ask, "Well, what is the difference?" It is possible that he thinks that the purpose of this Amendment to the new Clause is wider than it really is, because I fully acknowledge that the practical consequence of the change we recommend is not considerable at all, but, as I see it, it has no disadvantage, and it has the merit that, so far as the statute law of England is concerned, the statutory acknowledgment of the hirervendor—I call him that—acting in this fashion, the statutory acknowledgment for the purpose of the legislation, that he has a good title when he has not, is not made. That may be regarded as a piece of purism, but it seems to me to have sense and value. The provision that the title gives to the purchaser any notional right which the hirer-vendor has not is avoided, and not acknowledged as part of our law, and it seems to me that this has an advantage and that nothing is lost.
I felt this sufficiently strongly, I am bound to say, to ask myself, what was the reason why the matter had been dealt with in this way. Of course, as I have said before on this Bill and other Bills, one has the very greatest respect for the persons who concern themselves with trying to get these often difficult matters right, and I asked myself, why have they done this? Why has this been done by the Government? Why have they gone out of their way in this fashion to enshrine a title in this misbehaving hirer-vendor? I wondered whether the

reason was that it was regarded in some way as protecting a remedy which might be available to the owner. But I cannot see why that should be so. Indeed, I would have thought, so far as any remedy by the owner of a vehicle is concerned, if there is any difference at all, his prospects of effecting that remedy would be rather better than otherwise if no notional title were conferred upon the first hirer.
So we are on a fairly narrow point, an interesting point, a point where the language of the proposed Amendment has the same effect as the original language, but is preferable, as we suggest, and as I hope I have perhaps now convinced the Parliamentary Secretary, to the language originally proposed.

Mr. Weitzman: I must confess that I had not at first appreciated the force of the argument in regard to this Amendment.

Mr. A. J, Irvine: Good!

Mr. Weitzman: What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) is in effect saying is this. By this Clause we create something entirely new. We allow a departure from the ordinary conception in law that no one can give a better title than the owner's, that the hirer has no title at all and cannot pass it on to somebody purchasing it from him. What my hon. and learned Friend is saying, rightly, is that we are thus departing from this principle, and that if we are doing that sort of thing, it is important that we should limit it as much as possible.

Mr. Irvine: That is right.

Mr. Weitzman: If we leave in the words as they are in the new Clause, what we are saying is
that disposition shall have effect as if the title of the owner or seller to the vehicle had been vested in the hirer or buyer immediately before that disposition.
These words really set out, so to speak, the fact that we are saying that the hirer or buyer was the owner of the goods. What my hon. and learned Friend is seeking to do is to substitute the words
to vest the title of the owner or seller to the vehicle in the purchaser".
Notice that he does not refer to the hirer at all. In other words, he refers


to the owner. What he is saying is that in the special circumstances created by this Clause we are vesting the title of the owner or seller; and we are not dealing with the hirer at all.
To that extent it limits this anomaly we are creating in our law. I would agree with my hon. and learned Friend and would support him in that the effect is exactly the same whether we use the one set of words or the other, but I think that from the point of view of the conception in law it would be better to adopt the words in the proposed Amendment to the Clause.

Sir E. Errington: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman clear my mind on this, if he can? I have been following what he has been saying. What I do not understand is, whether the proposed Amendment to the Clause is accepted, or whether the Clause remains as it is, will that have any effect on the third person who buys from the purchaser in these circumstances? I should like to be satisfied about that.

Mr. Weitzman: As I understand it, the position will be exactly the same, whether we have the rights contained in the Clause or whether we have the words of the proposed Amendment to the Clause. It is merely a matter of using words which limit, so to speak, this conception that we are departing from the law.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: That is right.

Dr. Bennett: I see the force in the argument deployed by hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, but I should like to raise another point which is germane though not within the proposed Amendment to the Clause. Are we sure that the word "disposition" is the correct word, and that it is not "disposal"? I am a little worried about that.

Mr. R. M. Bingham: It seems to me that really the choice lies between two types of transaction. The transaction proposed in the new Clause could be described, I think, as a notional disposition. I think that that would be a fair method of describing it. It is a disposition; it is given notional effect by the deeming provisions of the new Clause. So we

have on the one hand a transaction which has the character of a notional disposition. On the other hand, the Opposition Amendment proposed to the new Clause would produce a transaction which I think could more accurately be described as a statutory vesting. I think that that would differentiate the two types of transaction.
I have at once to admit that I do not think there is a great balance of advantage in either form of transaction. It seems to me that on a notional disposition the purchaser's rights are more likely to be better preserved and safeguarded than they would be under the Opposition Amendment proposed to the new Clause.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's account of a notional disposition. It is in the sense that the hirer-vendor has no authority or title to sell. But I have the greatest difficulty in following the distinction which the hon. and learned Gentleman draws between the Government's provision, which has the effect of vesting the title in the hirer-vendor, and the provision in our Amendment vesting the title in the purchaser.
It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman will think that all I am doing is stating the question—perhaps that is all I am doing—but I have not followed his argument that as between these two choices of method of dealing with this one can have for any purpose in law a different effect from the other. In arguing for this Amendment, I am concerned with the matter of form much more than with the practical consequences affecting any party. I am concerned to avoid a provision unnecessarily going out of its way to enshrine what in principle may be open to objection.

Mr. Bingham: The real point is how the vesting of the title goes. Under the Opposition's Amendment, the vesting could only be said to occur by operation of law. Under the Government's new Clause, the vesting will occur by reason of a disposition, admittedly a notional one. The disposition will be a sale. Therefore, one will have all the incidences of a sale attached to it. For that reason, I prefer the Government's new Clause.

Mr. John Silkin: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), but I must confess that I have considerable sympathy for the Parliamentary Secretary at this moment in that he has had to listen to so many hon. and learned Gentlemen disputing the effect of the Clause.
There is considerable force in the argument that anything which appears to sanctify an evil doer, if I may take my hon. and learned Friend's point, ought to be frowned on by legislation, and, rightly or wrongly, this is the effect. What is said is that if A, a hirer, wrongfully disposes of a motor vehicle at one minute to ten to B, an innocent purchaser, the law, by some magic, makes him the real owner of the motor vehicle at one minute to ten. This cannot be right, and ought not to take effect.
I am puzzled by another point. It has been said that there may be no legal consequences, or no difference in legal consequences, as a result of this. But I notice that disposition is defined in the interpretation Clause as meaning not only a sale but a contract of sale. Let us suppose that the following situation arises. Suppose A contracts to sell, wrongfully, a motor car at one minute to ten to B, and suppose that for reasons which need not concern us the contract is never fulfilled. By that very simple process, A, as I understand it, becomes the rightful owner of the motor vehicle. I see the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head. I hope I am wrong about this—

Mr. D. Price: indicated assent.

Mr. Silkin: —but it is a point which has worried me.

Mr. D. Price: As I understand it, what has been troubling the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) is really a metaphysical point, but I am no less interested in that. As hon. Members know, I take considerable interest in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas.
The hon. and learned Gentleman claims that under our wording the title is passing to the first private purchaser, but that, as we have worded the provision, it presumes that there was a split

second before the title passed and that the fraudulent hirer, as I suggest we call him, had for that split second in time good title. That is what the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting, and he says that his wording avoids this point.
We all agree that in practice it is relevant, but it is important in terms of getting our legal metaphysics correct. I am advised that the situation which has been troubling the hon. and learned Gentleman does not arise, and that subsection (2) of the Clause as drafted and the words that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to leave out do not confer a notional title on the hirer. I draw the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the words "as if".
Furthermore, I would counter by raising one objection to his alternative words which I mentioned in my opening comments, that in certain circumstances—circumstances which are, admittedly, not likely to be frequent—it could involve the first private purchaser in having better title on other matters which would not be able to pass under our wording, because it will be within the knowledge of the House that this establishes good title only when in respect of a motor car under hire purchase. It is only in respect of the hire-purchase agreement, not in respect of other matters which may ensure that the car has not got good title.
As I read the hon. and learned Gentleman's alternative phrasing, it could involve the private purchaser getting a car which had been stolen and where under this Bill good title does not pass, it could establish good title.

Mr. Weitzman: I take it that what the hon. Gentleman means is that if the owner had a better title, a greater title, than the hirer, those words might be transferring greater title. Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Price: What I am saying is that that would be so—in other words, if the hirer had got a stolen car—because there is nothing in this which gives a good title on a stolen car.
I hope that that is sufficient to suggest to the House why we should prefer the words as drafted. Indeed, we can see the danger that I have just pointed out—a practical danger. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, purist though I


know he is—and I respect him for it—in legal draftsmanship, will accept that on the pragmatic level our words are as good as his. I will not concede that his words are metaphysically better, but even if he feels that they are, I suggest that there is just the one flaw in his own wording which I have pointed out.

Mr. Darling: By leave of the House, I thought for a moment, when the Parliamentary Secretary was replying to questions which had been put to him, that we were returning to the just price, and I felt somewhat apprehensive. Laymen such as I enjoy launching these legal discussions, because this is the easiest way to understand what these rather obtuse Statutes really mean. I had not been entirely convinced by the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments against our Amendments until he came to his final point when he referred to a practical danger. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said for the first time, "There is something in this". In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause be added to the Bill.

Mr. Darling: I find that I am now in order if I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for carrying out his promise in Committee to accept the principle of the new Clause which we then put forward for the purpose of getting rid of the very complicated and, as we thought, completely unworkable Part III of the Bill. We thought then that we had found a simple solution to this very difficult problem, but when we agreed that our new Clause should be withdrawn and that the Parliamentary Secretary should have the chance to put something in its place, we did not expect that the three new Clauses which we have been discussing could turn out to be like this. Anyhow, we are grateful. I do not think that it would be fair to the House to prolong the discussion at this time, but there are one or two matters to which I should like to refer.
What I should like to say now is that these three Clauses can be only a temporary measure. We have to see how

they work out. The consolidation and the Amendments which have to be made in anticipation of consolidation cannot be long delayed. It might be useful to let the three Clauses go as they are and let them be enacted and then see what happens, particularly on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), to see how the voluntary scheme for registration of hire-purchase transactions of motor vehicles and the voluntary indemnity scheme, which the major and reputable finance houses will themselves operate, work out. I am confident that the time will come when we shall have to take over, so to speak, the H.P.I. and have compulsory registration of all vehicle deals on hire purchase.

Sir E. Errington: It is not quite the position that the Finance Houses Association is to operate an indemnity scheme for everybody. I want to make it quite clear that this is a matter on which the companies will have to come to decisions for themselves, but it will certainly not be available for everybody.

Mr. Darling: Like so many useful and necessary voluntary schemes, the best people will come in and the others will stay out, but eventually they will get together if the scheme is beneficial to all concerned. We hope that the voluntary arrangements may go on and that they will be successful and that in the months ahead we shall have a chance to see how they work, particularly for registration.
I should also like to refer to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney. North (Mr. Weitzman) said about the owner suffering under these arrangements. It needs to be said that 95 per cent. of the owners in transactions of this kind are the finance companies and that they have voluntarily agreed to bear the burden of costs of any fraudulent operation, enabling the innocent buyer to retain the car be has wrongly bought.
I am convinced that this is a temporary arrangement and that the quicker we can get consolidation the better. As a prelude to consolidation, we will now have the benefit of the experience of the working of these three Clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO DEALINGS WITH MOTOR VEHICLES.)

(1) Where in any proceedings (whether criminal or civil) relating to a motor vehicle it is proved—

(a) that the vehicle was let under a hire-purchase agreement, or was agreed to be sold under a conditional sale agreement, and
(b) that a person (whether a party to the proceedings or not) became a private purchaser of the vehicle in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement,

the following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purposes of the operation of section (Protection of purchasers of motor vehicles) of this Act in relation to those proceedings.

(2) It shall be presumed for those purposes, unless the contrary is proved, that the disposition of the vehicle to the person referred to in paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection (in this section referred to as "the relevant purchaser") was made by the hirer or buyer.

(3) If it is proved that that disposition was not made by the hirer or buyer, then it shall be presumed for those purposes, unless the contrary is proved,—

(a) that the hirer or buyer disposed of the vehicle to a private purchaser who was a purchaser of the vehicle in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement, and
(b) that the relevant purchaser is or was a person claiming under the person to whom the hirer or buyer so disposed of the vehicle.

(4) If it is proved that the disposition of the vehicle to the relevant purchaser was not made by the hirer or buyer, and that the person to whom the hirer or buyer disposed of the vehicle (in this subsection referred to as "the original purchaser") was a trade or finance purchaser, then it shall be presumed for those purposes, unless the contrary is proved,—

(a) that the person who, after the disposition of the vehicle to the original purchaser, first became a private purchaser of the vehicle was a purchaser in good faith and without notice of the hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement, and
(b) that the relevant purchaser is or was a person claiming under the original purchaser.

(5) Without prejudice to any other mode of proof, where in any proceedings a party thereto admits a fact, that fact shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken as against him to be proved in relation to those proceedings.—[Mr. D. Price.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. D. Price.]

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Bingham: There are two matters which I wish to raise. I fear that both are technical and relate to the criminal law. The new Clause starts with the words:
Where in any proceedings (whether criminal or civil) relating to a motor vehicle it is proved—

(a) that the vehicle was let under a hire-purchase agreement…and
(b) that a person…became a private purchaser…in good faith and without notice…"


I am not quite clear what the position in criminal law is if a vehicle on hire purchase is stolen from the hirer and finds its way into the motor market and eventually ends up in the hands of a person who thinks that he is a bona fide purchaser.
It seems to me that anyone who wishes to prosecute the hirer is in possession of, enough facts to do so. First, the vehicle is let under a hire-purchase agreement, and, secondly, someone, that is, "a person", has become a private purchaser of the vehicle in good faith. These presumptions hold good in criminal as well as civil law and on proof of these two facts the hirer might then be prosecuted for having sold a car which did not belong to him; in other words, for having stolen it from the hire-purchase company. In these circumstances, the hirer, although, in fact, the car would have been stolen from him, would be in the unique position in criminal law of having to prove his innocence. As they apply to criminal law, these presumptions should be reconsidered.
Subsection (5) of the new Clause says:
Without prejudice to any other mode of proof, where in any proceedings a party thereto admits a fact, that fact shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken as against him to be proved in relation to those proceedings.
I have no objection to that so far as it relates to civil proceedings, but the same point is valid in this connection if it applies to criminal proceedings. It seems to lead to a novelty which is undesirable, for although there is, I believe, some very tenuous authority for saying that a party to criminal proceedings can make an admission, so far as I know it is certainly not the practice in criminal courts for that to take place. If it is to be made competent for a


defendant to criminal proceedings to make admissions, one wants to study the effects of a novelty like that and not have it come in, as it were, on the side-wind of a subsection of a hire-purchase Bill.
Secondly, some method of safeguarding the making of admissions should be found. For instance, I do not know whether it is envisaged that if the man makes a voluntary statement in writing at the instance of a police constable, that therein makes something which begins to be an admission and which would be taken to be an admission. I do not know at what stage of the proceedings the admission could be made. No man can be asked to explain his case or defend himself until the prosecution has put forward its case. At what stage would the admission fall to be made?
It may be said that an admission here is purely voluntary and that, if a man wants to make an admission, he should be able to do so, but, for the reasons which I have tried shortly to outline, that proposal should be viewed with caution and I hope that it will be reconsidered. This seems to be a somewhat major novelty for a hire-purchase Bill.

Mr. Weitzman: I think that the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) has raised an extremely important point with regard to subsection (5), and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see that it is looked into because, from the point of view of criminal law, it is most important that we should not depart from the present adopted procedure that admissions should not be accepted. In criminal law strict proof has to be given of any facts sought to be proved against an accused person, but subsection (5) appears to give power to allow admissions to be made in criminal proceedings. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the seriousness of this point.

Sir E. Errington: I referred to this originally because I did not understand the full effect of it. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham). There seems to be no need for this. If a person makes an admission, I should have thought that that would be sufficient.
This raises the question of the stage at which, in the course of criminal proceedings, an admission can be made, and under what circumstances, bearing in mind that a criminal prosecution is in the offing. This illustrates the difficulty into which one gets when dealing with a long Clause like this new one, without having the advantage of being able to discuss in Committee.

Mr. D. Price: I am advised that the new Clause does not go as far as was suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham). These presumptions are only for the purposes of the operation of the preceding new Clause which we have just passed—"Protection of purchasers of motor vehicles".
My hon. and learned Friend put subsection (5) into a rather wide context, and suggested that it was altering the laws of evidence in criminal proceedings by, as it were, the back door. I am advised that that is not so, and that these provisions are limited to the circumstances envisaged in new Clause 1, which will be the preceding Section in the Act.

Mr. Weitzman: If that is so, what is the necessity for the words "whether criminal or civil"?

Mr. Price: I understand that there can be criminal proceedings arising out of the provisions of the previous new Clause.

Mr. Bingham: I am not altogether with my hon. Friend at the moment. Will he consider saying "whether in any proceedings arising out of this section"? At the moment it says
any proceedings (whether criminal or civil) relating to a motor vehicle…

Mr. Price: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, if he reads on a little further, it says that
the following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purposes of the operation of section (Protection of purchasers of motor vehicles) of this Act in relation to those proceedings.
That is my authority.

Mr. Bingham: I apologise to my hon. Friend. That kills that point, but it leaves open the wider point about the application of admission in criminal proceedings, and also the other point


which I made about opening the door to the prosecution of any hirer whose vehicle might be stolen, and then putting him on his defence.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Gentleman referred to the words:
the following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purposes of the operation of section (Protection of purchasers of motor vehicles)…
That is the first new Clause, which deals only with the arrangements that we are making for civil proceedings with regard to the transfer of a good title. It is not a question of contemplating criminal proceedings. What is the necessity for the words "whether criminal or civil"? May they not be interpreted as giving the prosecution the right to put in an admission of a fact? The law today is that the prosecution must prove that fact.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Surely, if the effect of the provision is to give to the wrong-doer a notional title for the purpose of the Bill, it is desirable to make it clear that that would not affect criminal liability?

Mr. Price: I am advised that, with regard to subsection (5), the admission to prove something must be made in the course of proceedings. The question was whether the admission could be made to a policeman or in the witness box.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be added to the Bill.

Sir E. Errington: I still do not understand subsection (5) and I should like an explanation of why it is there. I can understand the difficulties which arise from it, but why is it there? What purpose does it serve?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART III.)

(1) In this Part of this Act—
conditional sale agreement" and "seller" have the meanings assigned to them by section 21(5) of, and paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to, this Act;
disposition" means any sale or contract of sale (including a conditional sale agreement), any letting under a hire-purchase

agreement and any transfer of the property in goods in pursuance of a provision in that behalf contained in a hire-purchase agreement, and includes any transaction purporting to be a disposition (as so defined), and "dispose of" shall be construed accordingly;
hire-purchase agreement" and "owner" have the meanings assigned to them by section 21(1) of the Hire-Purchase Act 1938;
motor vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads to which the public has access.

(2) In this Part of this Act "trade or finance purchaser" means a purchaser who, at the time of the disposition made to him, carries on a business which consists, wholly or partly,—

(a) of purchasing motor vehicles for the purchase of offering or exposing them for sale, or
(b) of providing finance by purchasing motor vehicles for the purpose of letting them under hire-purchase agreements or agreeing to sell them under conditional sale agreements.

and "private purchaser" means a purchaser who, at the time of the disposition made to him, does not carry on any such business.

(3) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person becomes a purchaser of a motor vehicle if, and at the time when, a disposition of the vehicle is made to him; and a person shall be taken to be a purchaser of a motor vehicle without notice of a hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement if, at the time of the disposition made to him, he has no actual notice that the vehicle is or was the subject of any hire-purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement.

(4) In this Part of this Act "the hirer or buyer"—

(a) in relation to a motor vehicle which has been let under a hire-purchase agreement, means the person who at the material time (whether the agreement has before that time been terminated or not) is the hirer in relation to that agreement for the purposes of the Hire-Purchase Act 1938, including a person who at that time is, by virtue of section 13(1) of that Act, deemed to be a bailee of the vehicle as therein mentioned;
(b) in relation to a motor vehicle which has been agreed to be sold under a conditional sale agreement, means the person who at the material time (whether the agreement has before that time been terminated or not) is in relation to that agreement the buyer (as defined by paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to this Act), including a person who at that time is, by virtue of section 13(1) of the Hire-Purchase Act 1938 (as modified by paragraph 4 of that Schedule), deemed to be in possession of the vehicle as therein mentioned.

(5) In this Part of this Act any reference to the title of the owner or seller to a motor vehicle which has been let under a hire-purchase agreement, or agreed to be sold under a conditional sale agreement, and is disposed of by the hirer or buyer, is a reference to such


title (if any) to the vehicle as, immediately before that disposition, was vested in the person who then was the owner in relation to the hire-purchase agreement, or the seller in relation to the conditional sale agreement, as the case may be.

(6) In the application to Scotland of subsection (4) of this section, for the word "bailee" there shall be substituted the word "custodier".—[Mr. D. Price.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. D. Price.]

Mr. Silkin: I should like to return to the physical from the metaphysical of new Clause 1, and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why, in the interpretation Clause, "disposition" includes a "contract of sale"? At an earlier stage I hinted at what I believed might be the

New Clause.—(NOTICE OF HIRER'S DEFAULT.)

5
(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where goods are let under a hire-purchase agreement to which the principal Act applies, and that agreement, or any other agreement, contains a provision (however expressed, and whether limited to defaults in payment or not) whereby, apart from this section, on the occurrence of, or at a time to ascertained by reference to, a default in the payment of one or more instalments or other sums payable by the hirer, such of the consequences mentioned in the next following subsection as are specified in that provision (in this section referred to as "the specified consequences") would follow.


10
(2) The consequences referred to in the preceding subsection are that the hire-purchase agreement, or the bailment of the goods, shall terminate, or shall be terminable, or that the owner shall have a right to recover possession of the goods.


15
(3) If default is made in the payment of one or more sums to which that provision (in this subsection referred to as "the relevant provision") applies, the specified consequences shall not follow by reason of that default unless the owner serves on the hirer, by post or otherwise, a notice (in this section referred to as a "notice of default") stating the amount which has become due, but remains unpaid, in respect of sums to which the relevant provision applies, and requiring the amount so stated to be paid within such period (not being less than seven days beginning with the date of service of the notice) as may be specified in the notice.


20
(4) Where a notice of default is served, the specified consequences shall not follow before the end of the period specified in the notice by reason of any default to which the notice relates; and, if before the end of that period the amount specified in the notice is paid or tendered by or on behalf of the hirer or any guarantor, the specified consequences shall not follow thereafter by reason of any such default.


25
(5) In a case where the specified consequences are that the hire-purchase agreement, or the bailment of the goods, may be terminated by notice given by the owner, a notice of default may include a notice terminating the hire-purchase agreement or the bailment at or after the end of the period specified therein in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, subject to a condition that the termination is not to take effect if before the end of that period the amount specified in the notice of default is paid or tendered as mentioned in the last preceding subsection.


30
(6) Without prejudice to the service of a notice of default in any way in which such a notice could be served apart from this subsection, a notice of default shall be deemed to be served on the hirer under a hire-purchase agreement if—


35
(a) it is addressed to the person last known to the owner as the hirer under the agreement, and is delivered at, or sent by post to, the last known address of that person, or


40
(b) in a case where that person has died, the notice (if not served in accordance with the preceding paragraph) is addressed to that person's personal representative (whether by that or any similar description, and whether for the time being there is any personal representative of his or not) and is delivered at, or sent by post to, the address which was the last known address of the deceased person.

effect on a contract of sale which was later rescinded, and I would very much welcome an explanation.

Mr. Price: The definition is that it is a
contract of sale (including a conditional sale agreement).
The Bill deals with conditional sale agreement as well as with hire purchase.

Mr. Silkin: If I might speak again with the leave of the House, I Suggest, with respect, that the omission of the words
"contract of sale (including a"—
and then follow certain other words—would have done just as well.

Question put and a agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

45
(7) Where the person who, immediately before his death, was the hirer under a hire-purchase agreement has died, and his rights under the agreement have not yet passed to a personal representative,—


50
(a) section 9 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (vesting of estate of intestate between death and grant of administration) shall not be construed as enabling a notice of default to be served on the Probate Judge (as defined by that Act) as being the hirer under that agreement, and


(b) subsections (1) to (5) of this section shall have effect as if the deceased person had not died, and any reference in those subsections to default in the payment of a sum payable by the hirer shall be construed accordingly.


55
(8) At any time after the service of a notice of default and before the amount 55 specified in the notice is paid or tendered as mentioned in subsection (4) of this section or the period specified in the notice expires (whichever first occurs) the goods to which the hire-purchase agreement relates shall not be treated—


60
(a) for the purposes of section 4 of the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908, as goods comprised in a hire-purchase agreement made by the hirer, or


(b) for the purposes of that section or of section 38 of the Bankruptcy Act 1914, as goods which are by the consent and permission of the owner in the possession, order or disposition of the hirer.—[Mr. D. Price.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. D. Price: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is not an entirely new Clause, although it is presented as such. It is, in effect, a revised version of Clause 15 of the Bill, the deletion of which I shall be moving later.
In Committee I introduced Clause 15 pursuant to an undertaking given by the Government in another place. Clause 15 provides a new safeguard for a hirer who fails to pay an instalment when it is due. It prevents immediate repossession of the goods and thus safeguards the hirer in the event of illness or simply oversight.
In practice, the cases in which this additional safeguard is most likely to be useful are those where there is a default of payment before one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid. Clause 15 provides that if a default in a payment occurs, the owner cannot exercise any right that he has under the agreement to terminate or regain possession of the goods immediately. He must first send the hirer a notice of default, stating the amount due and giving him not less than seven days in which to pay. If the hirer does not pay in the period specified, the owner is free to exercise his rights.
When this Clause was considered in Committee, I said that the Government would amend it on Report to deal with certain situations which could arise if the hirer died. "Hirer" is defined, in Section 21(1) of the 1938 Act, as including a person to whom the hirer's rights or liabilities have passed by operation of

law. So, normally the Clause as it stood would safeguard a man's estate after his death. But, where there is no will or no person representative, the Clause requires amendment to safeguard the estate. I also accepted an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) which was added to the Clause as subsection (6). We think that there is a further respect in which the provisions of this Clause can be made more comprehensive; this is by requiring the notice of default to be served in all cases, even if the right the owner wishes to enforce is actually contained in another agreement, and not in the hire-purchase agreement itself.
For the convenience of the House, we have put down this new Clause, rather than a series of individual Amendments to Clause 15.
The provisions of subsections (1) to (5) of the new Clause are very similar to those in subsections (1) to (5) of Clause 15. Subsection (1) now covers the possibility of the owner's rights being contained not in the hire-purchase agreement itself but in a separate agreement, and, by referring to a default in payment of a sum payable by the hirer instead of to a default by the hirer, it covers the situation where he has died. Similarly, subsection (4) now provides for the money due being paid by or on behalf of the hirer, so covering the situation where there is no hirer within the terms of the definition in the 1938 Act.
Subsections (6) and (7) of the new Clause are additions. They provide additional methods of service of a notice to cover cases of difficulty where the hirer has died. The situation then


will be that, on the one hand, the estate should be entitled to the protection of the Clause, but, on the other, the owner must have someone on whom he can validly serve a notice. What is now provided is that a notice of default will be deemed to be served on the hirer if it is addressed to the person last known to the owner as the hirer, and if it is delivered or sent to the last known address of that person. It is also provided that if the hirer has died a notice of default can also be served by sending it to his personal representative at the deceased hirer's address; this covers the case where the owner knows the hirer is dead but does not know the precise name of the personal representative, or even whether there is one.
Subsection (8) is based upon the Amendment which was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Deptford and which provided that, during the period of the notice of default, the goods listed in the agreement should not be liable to seizure under the distress and bankruptcy laws. I accepted that Amendment but, on closer examination, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, as drafted, it went a little further than was intended. It would have continued the protection even after the amount stated in the notice of default had been paid, until the period specified in the notice expired. We have therefore amended subsection (6) so that the protection it gives will cease when the sum claimed is paid.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 51, at the beginning to insert "subject to paragraph (c) below".
This Amendment goes with the following Amendment, in line 53, at end insert:
(c) where a notice of default is served and within such period (not being less than seven days beginning with the date of service of the notice) as may be specified in the notice the owner becomes aware of the death of the hirer then to the period of notice specified in the notice of default there shall be added a further period of one month.
Some of my hon. Friends and I feel that in the circumstances arising on the

death of a person, particularly one who has made no will, confusion is sometimes very much worse confounded than in the normal cases of default. For example, somebody may become ill and be rushed to hospital, purely as a result of which he becomes in default. While he is in hospital he may die, and during all this time the seven days' notice is ticking away, as it were.
What the Amendments seek to do is to provide that if, as would be the normal course of events, somebody picks up a telephone and tells the owner, or writes to him, and says, "I am sorry, but the hirer is dead," another month is automatically added to the period of notice, during which the necessary next steps can be continued by the survivor, the next of kin, the personal representative, or what have you, of the deceased.
I hope that in the circumstances the Government will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. D. Price: I always feel diffident in rising after the hon. Member has spoken, because he puts his case so persuasively. These two Amendments are intended to make additional provision for the case where the hirer has died, and they propose to add a further period of a month to whatever time—now not less than seven days—has already been allowed under the notice of default for the hirer's overdue payments to be made good.
It is the overdue payment and not the total outstanding of the purchase price that we are concerned with. This was part of the proposal that was made in another place, and we can all understand the reasoning behind it. The time immediately after death is often one when ready cash is short, and there is also the real point that a bereaved family does not immediately think of all the outstanding hire-purchase commitments. On the other hand, we must be mindful of the legitimate interests of those who lend goods on hire purchase. There is the risk that after the hirer's death the goods may not be properly looked after. I have in mind particularly the question of motor cars. However, I do not want to make too much of that point, although it is relevant.
I have already said a great deal about the situation when the hirer has died. Clause 16, pursuant to the recommenda-


tions of the Molony Committee, avoids the termination of the agreement simply because the hirer has died. This is a most important new protection. Clause 17 goes further and ensures that if one-third of the purchase price has been paid and the hirer, had he lived, would therefore have been protected against repossession without a court order, and eligible for an order under Section 12 of the 1938 Act, giving him longer to pay, his estate shall have the same protection and the same benefits.
I have already explained that this new Clause has been carefully adjusted to ensure that, following the death of the hirer, his family would in all cases have the protection of the Clause, even in cases where there is no will. I think this is as far, in fairness to the other side in a hire-purchase agreement, as it is reasonable to go; bearing in mind that under Clause 17 there is already full protection if one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid. I do not think that it would be fair to the owner to prevent him from taking action for a further month. This applies only in cases where less than one-third has been paid.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I wish to support the Amendment, but I must acknowledge that it is a very difficult matter to know how one may best deal with this situation. I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise at once that where there has been a bereavement in a family a document like a notice of hirer's default is, in the practical world of affairs, just the kind of document which is overlooked and does not receive, in the agitation of the circumstances, the attention that it would normally receive. We have here a real and a practical difficulty and it is right that hon. Members should apply their minds to it. It is a matter affecting the public interest, albeit in a fairly limited way.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) would be the first to recognise that it is extraordinarily difficult to put forward a provision which will be fair to the owner. In other contexts we have been concerned to achieve fairness to everyone and we must maintain that purpose in this case. It is extremely hard, as we

would all readily acknowledge, that an owner of a chattel, dispatching notices of default, should be handicapped in the conduct of his affairs by the circumstance, of which he can hardly be expected in most instances to have knowledge, that there has been a bereavement in the household of the recipient, or the lessee is dead.
I cannot think of a better way to deal with the problem than that proposed by my hon. Friend. One has the choice between the Government's treatment of the matter, which makes no distinction in the period of the notice, and my hon. Friend's proposal, which makes a distinction in point of time. It would lead, as has been indicated, to some possible unfairness affecting the owner. I suppose that the way the thing would work out would be that were my hon. Friend's Amendment accepted in the kind of case we are seeking to consider now, the notice of the hirer's default would be sent and the period of seven days, on the hypothesis on which we are concerned, would expire. The owner would take appropriate steps, or what he thought were appropriate steps, to recover possession or remedy his situation or grievance, and then, if there were some kind of provision such as my hon. Friend proposes, when the owner did that, on this hypothesis, if in the course of so doing and bearing in mind that my hon. Friend's period of time had elapsed—the fact that the hirer's death came to the knowledge of the owner would render all the action taken by the owner ineffective.
When one comes to reflect on it, that is, perhaps, not a very great hardship for the owner. We are anxious to be fair to everyone. I ask the House this question: is this a very great hardship or uncertainty to impose on the owner of a chattel which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, when compared with the possibly rather grievous and distressing hardship which may accrue to a hirer who, because of family bereavement and circumstances of distress, had overlooked the arrival, or at least the significance, of the notice of default?
I commend my hon. Friend's Amendment to the House. He would not claim perfection for it, but I imagine that one cannot get perfection on a


point of this kind. The balance of advantage is with his argument. One would regard it as an improvement to the Bill if this provision were inserted.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am very hesitant about intervening at this stage when I have not taken any part previously in the discussions, but this is an Amendment which I think of some considerable importance. I support the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who proposed it.
Normally when there is a death those who have to collect money on behalf of supply services, for example, never press for payment for a time. The electricity board, the gas board, the telephone service and so on, all of whom have a perfect right to cut off supplies if the bill is owing, never do so as a matter of practice. They observe the ordinary decencies when a family is bereaved and the relatives have to try to tidy up the business and pull together the threads. I am sure that most finance companies and owners of goods on hire-purchase would adopt the same humane practice, but there may be some which would not. This is where the Amendment would be of assistance.
We are in difficulties at this late stage on the Bill as this is the very last opportunity we have to make an Amendment of this sort. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the matter from a humane point of view. This would not mean any great burden on any owner. When there is a death he would be asked to wait, instead of seven days, 28 days or perhaps a calendar month. That could not mean any great loss, but, from the practical point of view, to the relatives of the deceased person it would be of great importance.
Suppose that a death occurred from an accident. Suppose there were an inquest. The relatives would be concerned with the inquest and all the strange procedure they would have to go through. They would not have the time to collect the deceased's payments in the first seven days. Frequently the solicitor does not get his instructions for 10 or 14 days, and very reasonably so. We cannot expect the relatives to collect the papers in less than that time. These

payments may not come to light for several days. All the Amendment asks is that instead of seven days there should be a month's respite.
I cannot ask my hon. Friend to think again about this matter and bring forward a proposal at a later stage. That is the difficulty; we can only ask him to make a decision here and now, a generous and humane decision, and to accept the Amendment.

Mr. D. Price: Before attempting to respond to the challenge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and by hon. Members opposite, I make two points. The first I made in my opening remarks on the Amendment. We must remember that what is involved here is the outstanding instalment, not the whole purchase price which has yet to be paid.
Secondly, I am advised that the Amendment as drafted would not entirely achieve what the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and my hon. Friend want. This applies particularly to the drafting, which says:
the owner becomes aware of the death of the hirer.
There is imprecision. My hon. Friend asked me to make an on-the-spot decision and recommended acceptance. I have to make an on-the-spot decision on wording because, as he pointed out, we shall not have a second bite at this. Therefore, I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: On the particular point about drafting, these words were deliberately chosen. The alternative was to say that the owner has received notice or has been served with a notice. It is obvious that the occasion might arise when the owner learns of the matter through his own initiative and not through having been served with a written notice. I do not think there is any harm in the words of the Amendment as drafted.

Mr. Darling: May I, too, appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary? I was impressed not only by the arguments put forward for the acceptance of the Amendments but by the fact that they were put forward from both sides of the House by solicitors—and solicitors get involved in the settlement of estates


in the way that has been suggested. The Parliamentary Secretary rests upon the argument that the wording of the Amendment is imprecise. Would he like me to go through the Bill and to show him other examples of imprecise wording? There are plenty in the Bill. This is no argument when a strong case of this kind has been put forward.
I recognise the Parliamentary Secretary's difficulties in the way in which the proceedings of the Bill have been conducted by the Government. As a result of that, we have to deal with 11 new Clauses and 109 Amendments on Report on a Bill which started in another place, which means that we cannot refer anything to later stages. This is the end. I therefore appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to forget the advisers behind him for a change and to do something which I know that he personally wishes to do—put these two Amendments in the Bill.

Mr. Silkin: I reinforce what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is a very humble little Amendment, designed to meet a very small and limited circumstance. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the wording is loose and imprecise—and there was only one example of that. It was intended to be loose and imprecise, for the simple reason that I wanted to make certain that if a finance house became aware in any manner whatever of the death of the hirer, the Amendment would come into effect. I know that all the reputable finance houses are very willing in these circumstances to give much longer periods of notice. This is a matter of practice. They all do it.
All I can say is that if we give it the effect of law it will see that this is generally carried out throughout the country and that some civilised standards of behaviour will become operative at the moment of bereavement.

Amendment negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(EFFECT OF BREACH OF CONDITION.)

(1) Where a motor vehicle is let under a hire purchase agreement to which the principal Act applies the hirer shall not be entitled to reject the vehicle by reason only of a breach of either or both of the conditions implied by virtue of

section 8(1)(d) (as to merchantable quality) and section 8(2) (as to fitness for purpose) of the principle Act, unless—

(a) he shall have given to the owner or to any person who conducted any antecedent negotiations, but is not the owner, an opportunity to rectify or cause to be rectified the defects in the vehicle giving rise to the breach of condition, and
(b) the owner or person who conducted any antecedent negotiations, as the case may be, has not rectified the defects giving rise to the breach of condition, or caused them to be rectified, to the reasonable satisfaction of the hirer and within a reasonable period from the date on which the owner or person who conducted any antecedent negotiations received written notice that the vehicle was defective giving particulars sufficient to enable the matters complained of to be identified.

(2) Where it is shown that defects giving rise to breach of either of the conditions to which this section refers have arisen on more than one occasion the hirer shall be entitled to reject the vehicle for breach of condition if he shall have given to the owner or to any person who conducted any antecedent negotiations an opportunity to rectify or cause to be rectified the defects in the vehicle giving rise to the breach of condition on a number of occasions that is reason able having regard to the defects that have arisen.

(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the hirer at any time to—

(a) set up against the owner breach of the conditions to which this section refers in diminution or extinction of the hire purchase price; or
(b) maintain an action against the owner for damages for breach of the conditions.—[Mr. Gresham Cooke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I apologise, for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), who is abroad with the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians.
The Principal Act says that the hirer can reject goods and rescind the contract if the goods are not of merchantable quality. Under the Bill that applies to motor vehicles up to £2,000. For the purpose of the argument I will deal only with new goods, and I have confined the Clause to motor vehicles. I agree that they are an example of other engineering goods, but they represent the principal type which will be affected. By Clause 11(5), the hirer can serve a notice on and hand back a motor vehicle to the agent, the dealer or the garage on rescision of the contract, if he is not satisfied with the merchantable quality.
"Merchantable quality" was introduced as a term in the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, when the common law was codified. That Act was based principally on experience with agricultural produce. It dealt with things like adulterated oats, Moroccan horse beans, and so on. I suggest that the nineteenth century Act was the product of a rural economy. Oats, beans and potatoes were either merchantable—that is, saleable—or not, and the issue was clear.
In our complicated industrial age, matters are not so clearly black or white. There have been very few cases about the merchantability of motor vehicles or mechanical products generally, because I believe the lawyers considered that the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act were so irrelevant to mechanical goods that the terms of the Act were excluded in conditions of sale.
I am advised that on the basis of decided cases, such as they are, and what was intended as to merchantability in the 1893 Act, it is very likely as the law stands that the purchaser of a defective vehicle would be able to establish that the vehicle was unmerchantable or unsaleable, but it is clear that the courts will wish, when they have an opportunity to do so, to give a purchaser rights in respect of defective goods, and it is reasonable for them to do so.
The problem that arises in the case of vehicles is that the only remedy for breach of the condition of merchantability is the right to rescind the contract and return the goods at once. Accordingly, if the courts were to go as far as was suggested by the Molony Committee in paragraph 442, which said in effect that—
If an appliance…works imperfectly…it is small consolation to the purchaser to know that an expert can readily put it right"…
and therefore he should be able to throw it back to the owner, the House might agree that that view might not be unreasonable in the case of small mechanical things, such as lighters or electric razors, which can be repaired, wrapped up again, and sold to someone else as new. However, I suggest that this creates economic nonsense in the case of complicated products such as motor

vehicles which, as soon as they run a few miles, become secondhand. The motor vehicle has very often in law been treated as in a special class.
Therefore, I have for the sake of simplicity related the Clause only to motor vehicles, but I suggest that it would be a useful general amendment to the law relating to large complicated mechanical consumer durables. I am trying to create conditions in which the courts could take a wide view of what was meant by lack of merchantability without permitting the arbitrary return of goods in unreasonable circumstances. In effect the Clause encourages the consumer to get the goods put right under the warranty policy offered to him and still allows him to reject the goods when the owner or dealer has failed to put the goods right in a reasonable manner.
I claim that my Clause follows common law tradition, because it is a codification of present practice and is in line with the way the Sale of Goods Act itself was built up in the last century. Incidentally, I am not taking away from the consumer the right to damages, if he wanted in his anger to go straight to the court first without going back to his dealer or giving the dealer the opportunity to put the vehicle right.
As to fitness for purpose, which is also mentioned in the Clause, it is appreciated that under the Bill, as under the Sale of Goods Act, that condition can be excluded by the owner or the seller. No one wants to make exclusions, and the object of including a reference to fitness for purpose is to provide safeguards for cases where fitness for purpose might be called in question as the result of defects, and thereby to create conditions in which it is less likely to be excluded from conditions of sale.
All I have said on these matters is equally relevant in the case of secondhand goods, although in the case of secondhand goods merchantability can be excluded under Clause 12.
9.0 p.m.
I submit that if the new Clause were incorporated in the Bill the motor trade would be less likely to seek exclusion for special reasons, unfitness and so on. It would improve matters because I believe that the Clause would make the law more practical and would improve


it by creating conditions in which the courts would be able to give to consumers wider rights in respect of defective goods than they would have done if breach of the Clause necessitated the immediate return of the vehicle to the owner without seeking the intervention of the dealer or garage to rectify the defect.

Mr. Leonard Cleaver: One effect of the extension of the limit of application of the Hire-Purchase Act to £2,000 is to apply the warranties and conditions set out in Section 8 of that Act. These include, first, that the goods shall be of merchantable quality and, secondly, that the goods shall be fit for the purpose which they are required to serve.
The expressions "merchantable quality" and "fitness for purpose" are taken from the Sale of Goods Act, which was a summary of the case law relating to agricultural products and not drawn up to cope with the problems of the mechanical age, with the result that, where it would have been obvious what was of merchantable quality in the case of oats or meat, the same cannot be said of such things as motor cars.
There are plenty of trivial faults which can be put right by the turn of a spanner, but which, at the moment, could be regarded as rendering the vehicle unfit for its purpose and, therefore, might render the contract void. It may well be that the courts will determine by case law what is the definition of "merchantable quality" and "fitness for purpose", but the public should not be put to the necessity of going to court to settle things like that.
The new Clause provides that where a consumer has a defect in a vehicle which might be construed as rendering it unmerchantable or not fit for the purpose for which it was supplied, he will not necessarily have the right to rescind the contract and return the vehicle. To retain that right he must first give the dealer who supplied it, or the finance house, an opportunity to remedy the defect, and if that cannot be done, or not done within a reasonable period, he then has a right to return the vehicle.
This will not only prevent courts from ordering the return of vehicles in unreasonable circumstances, but will also allow them to develop concepts with regard to merchantable quality and fitness for purpose. This will cover consumers in respect of almost any defect without thereby having to order the return of a complete vehicle in other than reasonable circumstances.
It is important to note that the consumer can still sue for damages. The state in which modern mechanical products would be unfit or unmerchantable is far from clear. To give consumers the right to return the vehicle in respect of the majority of defects would seem to indicate that the courts would have to regard any defect, however trivial, as rendering the vehicle unfit or unmerchantable. Since this would require the court to order the return of the goods and recession of the contract, such a doctrine would create an impossible situation, which would ultimately result in an increase in price to consumers.

Mr. Weitzman: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reject the Amendment, which represents a piece of special pleading on behalf of the motor trade, The Sale of Goods Act, to which reference has been made, codified the existing law. Why should we say that merchantability must be related only to certain specified things? If the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) looks up the law on this matter he will find cases of merchantability of a more extensive type than those to which he referred.
By our common law, if goods are not merchantable or if they are not fit for the purpose for which they have been sold, there is right of rejection. If a person loses that right, what will happen if he is left with only the remedy of seeking damages? A person can say, "You sold me these goods. They are not fit for the purpose for which they are required and I reject them." He has a right to say that and I claim that there should be no special pleading on behalf of the motor trade, because the motor vehicle is in no more special position than any other article.

Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) said that the Sale of


Goods Act was passed in 1893, that it had little to do with motor cars, and that there were few cases of motor cars under the Act. In fact, the leading case on the question of "fit for the purpose" is one which relates to a motor car, and it is quite an old case which all of us as law students learned in our youth.
It was the case in which the plaintiff had bought what he thought was a family car and was sold a sports car. He said that it was not fit for the purpose which he had made known to the vendor. The facts of that case are that the defendants, in the course of the case, informed the learned judge that the car was in the courtyard of the Law Courts, and they invited him to have a ride in it. The learned judge accepted that offer. He went to the courtyard and endeavoured to get into the sports car. He cracked his head on the roof of the car, he was driven at high speed down the Strand and at high speed back again, he cracked his head in getting out of the car, and he gave judgment for the plaintiff.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: That well-known case was an argument about the type of the car, not whether the car would run or not.

Mr. Page: That is just the point to which I was coming. How, in a case like that, could the vendor make the article fit for the purpose for which it was sold? I do not see how my hon. Friend's Clause would have effect in such cases. If perhaps there were defects in the car which could be remedied, well and good, but the normal case of "fit for the purpose" is when the purchaser has made known the purpose for which he wants the goods and has relied on the vendor. I do not think that in such a case there would be any scope for remedying that defect and, therefore, the Clause would be ineffective.

Mr. D. Price: As hon. Members who laboured through the whole of the passage of this Bill will know, this new Clause raises very important and far-reaching questions, with implications, incidentally, which go far beyond the field of hire purchase. These matters have not been raised before in earlier debates and this is the first time that we have had a

chance of discussing them. At the risk of detaining the House for a few minutes, I think that I ought to say a little about them.
Section 8 of the 1938 Act implies in hire-purchase agreements to which the Act applies certain conditions as to the goods. One is that the goods shall be of merchantable quality. Another is that they shall be reasonably fit for the particular purpose for which the hirer has made known that they are required. The first of these conditions can be excluded where the goods are second hand but cannot be excluded in relation to new goods, except in respect of specified defects, as provided for in Clause 12 of the Bill. The second condition, fitness for purpose, can be excluded in all cases. These conditions also appear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) reminded us, in the Sale of Goods Act but not in precisely the same form. In particular, under the Sale of Goods Act, it is permissible to exclude the condition of merchantable quality even in relation to new goods, but this is not the case under Section 8 of the 1938 Act.
The Molony Committee considered the question of implied conditions and warranties in great detail and, in particular, it was concerned at the extent to which the consumer was being induced to sign away his rights in documents, such as manufacturers' guarantees, which he thought gave him fresh benefits but which in fact deprived him of his rights under the general law. The Molony Committee expressly stated its preference for the Hire Purchase Act in this matter, particularly because of the extent to which exclusion was prohibited, and it recommended this as the pattern to follow when the Sale of Goods Act was revised.
This new Clause is concerned principally not with new statutory provisions proposed in the Bill, but with existing provisions in the 1938 Act which, with the raising of the monetary ceiling, will be applicable to hire-purchase agreements for the generality of motor vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said that if the new Clause were accepted we would be taking nothing away from the consumer, but I point out most respectfully that we would be taking away rights that have existed since 1938. It is true that they


existed only in the category from £300 down and we are extending the range—but in the band from zero to £300 we would be taking rights away.
We know that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has sent all of us who have followed the Bill closely a memorandum explaining why it thinks that motor vehicles raise special problems and call for special treatment but, given the background I have described, it will be apparent that the effect of the Bill will not be quite as novel or as inappropriate as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders appears to suggest. The Society, indeed, made representations on precisely the same points to the Molony Committee, which dealt with those representations in its Report and came to conclusions with which we, when the Society again put the points to us, felt bound to agree.
The Molony Committee, in this part of its Report, was examining a broad problem of cases where consumers are dissatisfied with goods and where remedies in practice available to them are inadequate. I am sure that none of us wants to be unfair to those in the motor car industry—it is a great industry. They are very conscious—perhaps I might say increasingly conscious—of problems of this kind, and are anxious to do the right thing by their customers. But I think that it is also a fact that the extent to which it has been possible to exclude legal remedies has led their thinking on to wrong lines.
They have been in a position where, having excluded the general law, they offered certain benefits to their customers as an act of grace. It seems to me that, as a result, they rather regard themselves as entitled to decide for themselves questions of their liability for their goods, rather than for the question to be one, in the last resort at least, for the impartial decision of the courts. Again, it is, perhaps, because of the extent to which they have excluded rights at law that they seem to underestimate the ability of the courts to reach equitable conclusions in relation to individual cases. I can assure my hon. Friends that a court can be relied on to give short shrift to a frivolous claimant.
Before I come to the particular, there is one last general point. Motor

vehicles may be different, but they are not as different as all that. The conditions that Section 8 implies in hire-purchase agreements have been so implied in the past in relation to quite complex goods and, as far as I know, this has not, in practice, given rise to difficulties. The £300 limit certainly includes some quite complex motor cycles, and electronic equipment of various sorts, and I believe the courts are well able to take account of changing technology.
The new Clause deals with situations in which the implied conditions of merchantable quality or fitness for purpose have not been excluded in a hire-purchase agreement relating to a motor vehicles. The important case, in practice, is the condition of merchantable quality in relation to a new vehicle.
This Clause raises the question of how the concept of merchantable quality is to be applied in relation to motor vehicles. As drafted, the Clause proposes that where there is a breach of the condition, the hirer's normal right to rescind the agreement and reject the goods shall not be exerciseable until he has given the owner or dealer opportunities to rectify the defect or defects giving rise to the breach. But this is, to my mind, only a subordinate point.
9.15 p.m.
The real question is, what defect or combination of defects will be held to sustain a claim that a vehicle is not of merchantable quality? It is obvious that this is not a straightforward matter. We all recognise that motor vehicles are complex things, made up of many components and mass produced but required to function with a high degree of efficiency. Some defects are, no doubt, inevitable. Further, in some instances, the same defect could be due to an inherent flaw or could be the result of misuse at the hands of the hirer. How is the cause to be determined?
These are certainly valid points which are particularly applicable in relation to motor vehicles, but not exclusively so. Nor are they insoluble. The Molony Committee, in paragraph 442 of its Report, considered this criticism of the criterion of merchantable quality and expressed confidence in the ability of the courts


to apply it in relation to complex articles. We agree with the Molony Committee.
In the case of complex articles such as motor vehicles, small defects tend to arise in the early days and can cause considerable annoyance. Within reason, this is something to be expected. But I do not think that, if hirers had the benefit of the condition of merchantable quality, they would try to reject vehicles as unmerchantable on account of minor defects. These minor defects are irritating, but in general the person who has a car on hire purchase wants to use it—that is a fairly reasonable presumption—and the delay and inconvenience involved in arguing with the dealer and the finance house would, I think, deter hirers from exercising their rights under the condition of merchantable quality except as a last resort.
It is true—and I admit this at once to my hon. Friend—that there are no decided cases to show how the concept of merchantable quality would be applied to motor vehicles. That, as I have said before, is because the motor industry has excluded the conditions implied by law. To that extent, the courts will be deciding cases in new fields. A wide range of factors will, no doubt, be taken into account, including the nature and importance of the defect or defects, and how easily it can or cannot be put right; and a hirer claiming that there had been a breach of condition would have to prove that the defect was inherent in the car and not caused by misuse on his part. We cannot be certain in advance of the effects on the motor industry of making this condition unexcludable, but we see no reason to doubt the ability of the courts to establish standards of merchantable quality.
The new Clause would give the trader one or more opportunities to repair defects before the hirer became entitled to reject the car. This, I feel sure, would only complicate the matter further and cause delays. What, for example, is a number of occasions that is reasonable in relation to the defects? In the event of dispute, the courts would have to decide on the facts of the case, so that the Amendment does not save reference to the courts. But it would complicate the situation since there would,

apparently, be two points to be decided: whether the defects constituted a breach, and whether the circumstances justified the hirer in rejecting the car.
In short, we believe that the effect of implying this condition in agreements concerning motor vehicles will be less grave than has been represented to us. But the hirer should have his full rights under the condition. If really serious defects became apparent in a vehicle sufficient to justify the hirer in rejecting it on the ground of breach of the condition, then he should be able to reject it without protracted and fruitless attempts to correct the trouble.
We believe with the Molony Committee that the hirer of a car, just like the present hirer of a motor cycle, should have the added protection of the implied condition of merchantable quality. We doubt whether the right to reject a car will often be invoked, but I do not doubt the ability of the courts to deal with cases of this kind which come before them, as with cases where the hirer is claiming damages. I think that the motor industry is unduly hesitant to see itself and its products subjected to the adjudication of the courts. It underestimates how strong its position will be and how unreal is the hypothesis of frivolous claims being brought against it and upheld by the courts. I would therefore invite the House to reject the new Clause.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY COURT.)

Section 39 of the County Courts Act 1959 (which prescribes the general jurisdiction of county courts in actions of contract and tort) shall have effect in relation to hire-purchase agreements and credit-sale agreements to which the principal Act applies and conditional sale agreements to which section 21 of this Act applies as if for the reference to £400 there were substituted a reference to £2,000 or such larger sum as may from time to time be specified in any Order in Council made under section 1(3) of this Act.—[Mr. Silkin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new Clause is to give to the county courts full jurisdiction in all cases to which the Bill applies. The position is broadly as follows. Under the County Courts Act, 1959, the juris-


diction of county courts stops in the majority of cases at £400. The amount of money affected by the Bill is £2,000. Under the former legislation, all hire-purchase transactions affected by the hire-purchase legislation were within the jurisdiction of the county courts. Now, unless the new Clause is accepted, they will not be.
As the Parliamentary Secretary will recall, he and I played rather curious rôles at an earlier stage in Standing Committee, when I appeared rather to my surprise, as the defender of Jaguar owners and the hon. Gentleman, rather to his surprise, appeared as their attacker. We would, however, both agree that where we stand side by side is in endeavouring to protect the consumer, and to protect the consumer with, perhaps, less income than the normal Jaguar owner. It is that sort of person to whom the hire-purchase legislation applies, and it is precisely that sort of person who is most likely to be affected by actions in the courts.
If one could give that sort of person the ability to go to the county court rather than to the High Court, two things would be achieved. First, his costs would inevitably be reduced, because to go to the county court costs considerably less than going to the High Court; and in general terms, the length of time before which an action was heard would be reduced.
At best, an action in the High Court may take only four months or so, but in general, as every practitioner of the law knows, it is likely to take considerably longer. In fact, if an action were entered tomorrow it could not possibly be heard in the High Court before November, because of the long vacation intervening, which would be six or seven months from now, whereas an action entered in the county court might well—I agree that this is at the best—be heard before July. These are the basic reasons why I urge that the county court is the proper venue for actions based on hire purchase.
A number of arguments can be adduced against this proposition. The first is that in 1954, at the time when the hire-purchase limit was raised to £300, the jurisdiction of the county court was less than that figure and, therefore, an action based on a £300 hire-purchase

contract would have had to be brought in the High Court. This, however, was a fault which lay with the jurisdiction of the county courts. Most practitioners had been saying for some years that the jurisdiction should be raised; and a few years later, in 1959, the jurisdiction of the county courts was so raised. That has meant that up to now all transactions within the purview of existing hire-purchase legislation inevitably were fought out in the county court rather than in the High Court.
The second reason adduced against the change envisaged in the new Clause is that a county court has not the special expertise of the High Court in considering questions of this nature. Well, this is not entirely true. The county court has considerable experience of the sort of difficulties which ordinary men and women get into on a day-to-day basis as a result, for example, of shortage of money, and so on.
Therefore, hire-purchase troubles and hire-purchase difficulties are not strangers to the county court. On the contrary, they have been heard in the county court for a considerable number of years now. I doubt whether this is really true of the High Court, and if one talks in terms of expertise I would hazard the guess that far fewer cases based on hire-purchase legislation ever go to the High Court, or ever have, than go to the county court at this moment.
Indeed, the county court itself is capable of dealing with the most complex problems. It has, for example, unlimited jurisdiction in the question of landlord and tenant. Complexity of the law is no stranger, as I have said, to the county court; nor is complexity of hire-purchase law either.
The other factor, which I would have thought the determining factor, is that in the Bill as it stands Clause 14 gives the owner rights to bring actions for recovery of possession in the county court regardless of whether the figure in the hire-purchase agreement is over £400 or not. The exact words are:
Where goods have been let under a hire-purchase agreement to which the principal Act applies, and the owner brings an action to enforce a right to recover possession…the action shall be brought in the county court…".
I am merely suggesting that this principle, which already applies where


the owner seeks to recover possession, shall likewise be given to the hirer also. If it were to be contended that the county court is not the proper place for hire-purchase actions of this sort, I should reply that I cannot then for the life of me understand why Clause 14 was introduced into the Bill at all.
I should like to see this new Clause added to the Bill, and I know that I speak for practically every solicitor, for every practitioner of the law, in this respect.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who has proposed this new Clause. The county court has been recognised as the appropriate court for actions in connection with hire purchase, and that, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, is clearly recognised in this Bill itself, by putting actions for possession of hire-purchase goods firmly within the jurisdiction of the county court. It does seem rather ridiculous if one type of hire-purchase action is placed by the Bill within the jurisdiction of the county court and another type, merely because of the amount of money involved, is taken outside the jurisdiction of the county court.
More and more this House has been placing duties on the county court. We may, perhaps, be over-burdening the county court judges. Nevertheless, we have found that the county court has served the public so well that we are apt to place more and more burdens on the learned judges of the county courts. We have done so more and more from the nature of the case, not from its importance reckoned by the amount of money involved. All rent control cases go to the county court. In many other instances we have placed cases within the jurisdiction of the county court, because of the subject matter of the case rather than the financial importance of the case. We have recognised that the county court is the right court for hire-purchase cases.
9.30 p.m.
There are, as the hon. Member has pointed out, the advantages of time and cost—time in that the case can be brought before the county court more quickly than before the High Court;

and cost—I say this in the presence of a number of counsel who are in the House at the moment—because the solicitor has audience in the county court and frequently a case can be conducted there at far less expense to the litigants. Normally, hire-purchase cases of this sort are merely debt collecting, and the county court, in the light of the many hours that it spends on judgment summonses and judging the means of those who have got into financial difficulties, is particularly appropriate for this type of case.
Therefore, if it is merely a simple case of debt collecting it is greatly to the advantage of the plaintiff that it should come on quickly in the county court, and come on at no great expense. On the other hand, if the case is complicated and if the defendant has some serious defence to it, it is right that the defendant should have the benefit of bringing the case on quickly and cheaply in the county court.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept the Clause. I am sure that it will bring benefit to both sides who are unfortunate enough to have to litigate over hire-purchase agreements.

Mr. Weitzman: I, too, support the new Clause. What I am troubled about is what possible objection there can be to it.
It has been recognised in Clause 14 that in settling the most difficult cases the action should be brought—not "may" be brought—in the county court. The value of the county court has long been recognised in dealing with hire-purchase agreement cases. Why it should not deal with all these cases I do not know. Is it suggested that they might be too difficult for the county court judges? That cannot be right. In many instances, landlord and tenant cases are very difficult and involve estates, land, houses or tenements of very considerable value. But we have recognised that those cases ought to go to the county court. Consequently, I cannot see why we should reject the county court in this instance.
There is a strong argument in favour of it, that in the county court one can get an action brought much more quickly. I do not know whether it is a real advantage that solicitors are


allowed to take cases in the county court. That is another matter. However, from the point of view generally of convenience and from the point of view of trial in regard to all these issues, surely the county court is the right court to deal with these matters. I await with very great interest the possible objections which may be made to the Clause, which, I hope, will be accepted.

Sir E. Errington: In general terms I think that the new Clause should be supported, but I am not altogether certain that the wording:
or such larger sum as may from time to time be specified
is right. I should have thought it wise to have the flexibility of being able to alter the situation.
So far as the High Court is concerned, there may be certain classes of case which can be dealt with under the Order 14 procedure. If that is done in the High Court, it would be quicker than the county court procedure. Again, if a case is started in the High Court, the parties can agree for it to be transferred to the county court. I do not think that we can tell whether there will be a substantial increase in the number of hire-purchase cases, or whether there will be clogging up in certain courts in spite of the appointment of additional judges.
I would have thought that it was a wise precaution to leave the situation in such a way that if, contrary to expectation, the county courts could not digest the extra work, that would not prevent the matters from being dealt with in the High Court.

Mr. D. Price: For those of us who have followed the Bill on its way, these arguments are not entirely new. However, as there are hon. Members who have joined in, as is proper, on Report and who have not sat in Committee with us, I think that it is necessary to repeat one or two of the arguments deployed in our earlier discussions.
I remind the House that at present all actions to enforce a right to recover possession of goods under hire-purchase agreements to which the 1938 Act applies and where one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid must be brought in the appropriate county court.

In addition, any claim for any sum payable under the agreement or under a guarantee must be brought in the same action.
When the Bill comes into force, this jurisdiction of the courts will automatically be extended to actions for the recovery of goods under hire-purchase agreements not exceeding £2,000, or such larger sum as may be substituted by an Order in Council under Clause 1(3). Since the owner will be compelled to bring his action in the county court when one-third of the purchase price has been paid, that court will have jurisdiction.
Clause 14, which we added to the Bill in Committee, will extend the jurisdiction of the county court so that all actions for the recovery of goods before one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid must be brought in that court. It also enables the county court in any such action to entertain any claim by the owner for a sum due under the agreement or any related contract of guarantee. This position will also apply to conditional sale agreements.
However, there are certain other actions in connection with hire-purchase agreements which the 1938 Act, as amended by the Bill., will not require to be brought in the county court and to which the county court limit of £400 will therefore apply. This is only just scaling up what is already the position under the 1938 Act. There is, first, a money claim, exceeding £400, for payments under the agreement, or for damages where no action for the recovery of goods is brought; secondly, a claim for damages, exceeding £400, for breach of warranty; thirdly, a claim, exceeding £400, when the owner has recovered possession of the goods in contravention of Section 11(1) of the 1938 Act.
The new Clause would provide that all such cases would be brought in the county court by giving it concurrent jurdisdiction with the High Court in all actions of contract and tort. The county court would also be empowered to deal with actions arising out of credit-sale agreements.
In not giving the county court power to entertain a money claim alone when this exceeds £400, we are following the pattern of the 1938 Act. Such a claim


might be for damages for breach of warranties, or conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) talked about it being rather the nature of the case than any financial limit which he would like to see imposed. I suggest that the county court has no particular expertise in dealing with claims of the kind that I have just mentioned, that is to say, damages for breach of warranties or conditions, and there seems no reason why it should be given the power to entertain an action which may be far beyond its ordinary monetary jurisdiction. The matter of repossession—taking my hon. Friend's point—lies within the nature of the case. I suggest that those are important reasons for rejecting the new Clause.
The only reason why the county court is given power to entertain a claim for money due under the agreement or a guarantee where recovery of the goods is claimed is that it is desirable that the court, in making an order for the recovery of goods, should be able to take into consideration any other claim which the owner may have. This consideration does not apply where the claim is solely for a sum of money, and there is no special ground for giving the county court power to entertain such a claim if it is outside its ordinary jurisdiction.
In the case of credit-sale agreements, we think that the ordinary limits of county court jurisdiction should apply. There is no question of the recovery of goods—this again is a point which I want to stress—and there is nothing in the 1938 Act which compels a seller to bring an action in the county court.
The whole question of raising the limits of county court jurisdiction is kept under consideration by those who have responsibility for the courts, and this aspect is clearly only one part of the total situation. One also has to bear in mind the burden of work which falls on county courts, and I am advised that Clause 14 is as far as we ought to go in this respect.
The hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) referred to a point which he raised in Committee about the delay which is experienced in the High Court as against the county court. I have made inquiries on the subject and writ-

ten to the hon. Gentleman. It has been suggested that it can take two years before an action for a claim is heard in the High Court. I am advised that this is not so at all, and that if the plaintiff's solicitor were content to take his ordinary place in the High Court list and not ask for a fixed date, the action would normally come on for hearing within four days of the setting down. Even though this period is longer than the time for a defended county court case to come on for hearing, the delay is not such as to outweigh the general rule that claims exceeding £400 should be tried by the High Court.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue, when my hon. Friend said that a case would be heard within four days of being set down.

Mr. Price: I should have said four months. I thank my hon. Friend for correcting me.
In those circumstances we do not feel that it would be right, in this Bill, to raise the jurisdiction of county courts in matters which do not fall under my hon. Friend's definition of being within the same species.
I hope that I have explained to the House the particular matters which, if the new Clause were accepted, would fall to the county court, but which do not do so under the Bill as drafted. We believe that it is right that those other matters should not be brought within the jurisdiction of the county court.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Darling: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can clear up for a layman some of the difficulties and doubts in my mind about the argument which he has put forward. As I understand, under Clause 14 the county court has jurisdiction over all hire-purchase cases which come within the terms of that Clause. There is no monetary limit of any kind involved, except the monetary limit of £2,000 covering hire-purchase transactions.
But then he brought forward the three cases where, so far as I follow the argument, it has been traditional for action to be taken not in the county courts, but in the High Court. The distinction was made that if the case involves £400 or less it goes into the county court and if it is above £400 it goes into the


High Court. We are concerned here with a division not on the type of case—the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—but purely on an arbitrary figure that will decide whether an action will go into the county court or into the High Court.
As a layman, this distinction does not seem to make sense. Before the Parliamentary Secretary intervenes, let me put a case to him. Any Government have it in their power to alter the line on one side of which cases will go to the county court and on the other side of which to the High Court, merely by altering Purchase Tax or some similar tax. If Purchase Tax on motor cars were abolished—and most of the cases to which we are referring here are motor car purchase cases—far more car purchase cases would come within the county court procedure, on the three points mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, than is the case now.
These arbitrary decisions on monetary lines seem to make nonsense of the claim that if actions are concerned with more than £400 they should go to the High Court and if they are concerned with less they should go to the county court. As I understand, that is the case that the hon. Gentleman has been putting forward. To me, it does not make sense.

Mr. D. Price: The hon. Member refers to an arbitrary money limit, and says that variations can follow alterations in taxation. But that situation exists already. There is a monetary limit on the jurisdiction of county courts. The argument that he is applying now has already been applied in the case of every action brought in the county courts. I take the hon. Member back to Clause 14. The common theme of all matters which go automatically to the county court is the theme of the recovery of possession. It is when an action is purely monetary, without the element of repossession coming in, that the normal limitations of the jurisdiction of the county court come into play.
That is the point. The hon. Member must not complain about this in relation to the subject matter of the Bill; what he really ought to complain about is the present arbitrary limit on the jurisdiction of the county courts.

Mr. Weitzman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an intervention upon an intervention, which would not be fair to the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Darling.

Mr. Darling: I shall give my hon. and learned Friend an opportunity to speak as quickly as I can. The Parliamentary Secretary's intervention has helped me. I agree that this is the present practice. But we are trying to change it. That is the reason for the Amendment. We want to bring together in the county courts all hire-purchase cases. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that these arbitrary divisions exist, but we want to change them. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: I fear that no words of mine will melt the stony heart of the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter. Nevertheless, I would point out that if he believes that there is some sort of mystique or expertise, connected with repossession, which lies deep in the hearts of county court judges and not in the hearts of High Court judges he is very much mistaken. The truth of the matter is that both High Court judges and county court judges are judges learned in the law. They have a great deal of experience and they are quite capable of coping with these problems.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) put his finger right on the nub of the matter when he said that this is a question of grouping together transactions of a similar sort. The Parliamentary Secretary is complaining about the lack of expertise on the part of county court judges but they could very soon acquire such expertise. This would be a helpful measure to many people and I suggest not only to hirers. It would help the finance houses as well. It is in the interests of all that in hire-purchase cases the action be brought speedily and cheaply to trial. I am not convinced by the judicial mathematics of the Parliamentary Secretary, if I may put it in that way. As I tried to point out earlier, four months from now would land us in the middle of the Long Vacation, if we endeavoured to enter an action tomorrow. It could be in the county court before that time.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO GOODS.)

(1) Where a person (in this section referred to as "the owner or seller") lets goods under a hire-purchase agreement to which the principal Act applies, or sells goods under a credit sale agreement to which that Act applies, any representations with respect to the goods to which the agreement relates which were made, either orally or in writing, to the hirer or buyer by a person other than the owner or seller in the course of any antecedent negotiations conducted by that other person (in this section referred to as "the dealer") shall as between the hirer or buyer and the owner or seller be deemed to have been made also by the owner or seller and as between the dealer and the owner or seller be deemed to have been made also to the owner or seller.

(2) Where an owner or seller lets goods under a hire-purchase agreement to which the principal Act applies or sells goods under a credit-sale agreement to which that Act applies and such agreement has resulted from negotiations between the hirer and a dealer and pursuant to such negotiations the dealer has sold the goods to the owner or seller so that they may be the subject matter of the agreement, then the conditions and warranties implied by section 8 of the principal Act (as amended by section 12 of this Act) and by section 13 of this Act in so far as they apply as between the owner or seller and the hirer or buyer shall apply also as between the hirer or buyer and the dealer and as between the dealer and the owner or seller and the hirer or buyer shall be entiled to enforce them as against the dealer as if the same had been contained in a contract of sale between the dealer and himself and notwithstanding any agreement between the dealer and the hirer or buyer to the contrary.

(3) Nothing in this section shall exonerate any person from any liability (whether criminal or civil) to which he would be subject apart from this section.—[Mr. Silkin.]

Brought up, and read the First One.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to the House to discuss with this Clause Amendments No. 11, in page 11, line 30, to leave out Clause 10, and No. 39, in Clause 26, page 27, line 32, to leave out "and 23" and insert:
23 and (Representations with respect to goods)".

Mr. Silkin: The purpose of this Clause is to make a difference in the Bill, as it would stand in relation to misrepresentations, and to bring in an entirely different principle in connection with them. The present position is that under Clause 10, in every hire-purchase

agreement the dealer is considered to be an agent of the finance company, that is to say the owner, for the purpose of litigation in respect of express representation, or the question of fitness of purpose expressed or implied. To some of us this seems to be a rather curious method of dealing with the matter.
Under the Bill the dealer is the agent of the finance house. When a dispute arose between the hirer and whoever sold him the motor vehicle, or whatever the goods might be, would not it be more logical for him to sue the dealer rather than the finance house? For this reason we propose that this Clause be accepted. The dealer is the much more logical person to be sued. He is the person who has made the misrepresentation and who, technically, knows about the motor car or whatever it may be. He is the person to whom the hirer would naturally turn.
The finance house is not equipped, technically, to be able to deal with questions of misrepresentation of this sort. It may not even be equipped to deal with them geographically or territorially. It may be that a finance house in Nottingham or Birmingham is advancing money to a hirer in London or in South Wales. Presumably the dealer is just round the corner. In case it is felt that to make the dealer alone responsible might create difficulties—a back-street dealer might be involved, who, having supplied the motor car and arranged or observed that the hirer had got his finance to pay for it, then disappeared—the effect of the Clause is to make both the dealer and the finance house jointly and severally liable.
This seems to us a more logical way to deal with the matter. First, it puts the onus, legally as well as morally, exactly where it ought to be. It enables the customer, the hirer, to sue the man who has made the misrepresentation—to sue the dealer. If he gets no satisfaction from the dealer—if the dealer disappears or is a man of straw—he still has the finance house to fall back on, because the finance house is jointly and severally liable with the dealer.
When we consider what a very thin margin of legal distinction separates the workings of Clause 10, this I think gives some force to the idea behind the new Clause. For example, if the


hirer, instead of going to his finance house chooses to go to a bank and borrow the money to buy a motor car, the law simply says that his rights are rights against the dealer and not against the bank. The same is true if it is a credit sale rather than a hire purchase. There again, under a credit sale, the property will have passed and his rights are against the dealer and not against the finance house. This Clause is a much more logical Clause than the existing Clause 10. I hope that it will commend itself to the Government.

Mr. Bingham: There is only one point on which I wish to intervene, but before raising it I wish to say that to me Clause 10 seems very much superior to new Clause 7. I say that with respect to the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). I detect—this may appeal to him a little more—a point of weakness in Clause 10 which the hon. Member may be inclined to agree may apply also to his new Clause. That is the use of the word "representations".
I imagine that the drafter of the new Clause may possibly have borrowed the word "representations" from Clause 10. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to consider the effect of this word in the fourth line of Clause 10 and as it occurs in the third line of the new Clause. There is a distinction in law between representations and warranties. An action for a wrong representation is in practice of very little value to a purchaser. A purchaser is not concerned with the misrepresentation as such unless he can prove it to have been fraudulent.
If it happens to be a perfectly innocent misrepresentation, the remedies are not very strong. For that reason most purchasers are anxious to know whether they have an action or warranty or not. The wording of the Hire Purchase Act, 1938, sought to avoid a practice which was prevalent at that time of making the owner's servants and agents notionally the servants or agents of the buyer, to enable the responsibility for the seller's own agent to be in a different form. I have before me Halsbury's Laws of England. The provision is in Section 5(d) of the 1938 Act:
Any provision—(d) whereby any person acting on behalf of an owner…in connection with the formation"—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Bingham: For a moment I thought that I was out of order. Perhaps I may read that again:
Any provision—
(d) whereby any person acting on behalf of an owner…in connection with the formation or conclusion of a hire-purchase…agreement is treated as or deemed to be the agent of the hirer…".
The interesting note which occurs in Halsbury's Laws of England is:
Such provisions have quite frequently been inserted in hire-purchase agreements to protect finance companies from any "—
and these are the important words—
warranties or representations given or made by dealers".
Having regard to the exhaustive attention which will be given to Clauses of this nature by litigants and their legal advisers, I am not at all satisfied that "representation" will mean anything more than representation as excluding warranty. If that is the effect, we might have the extraordinary position that a dealer might make a statement, "This car is a 1956 car," in circumstances in which it amounted both to a representation and to a warranty. For the purpose of the representation he would be the agent of the finance house. For the purpose of a warranty he would not. The purchaser would find himself deprived of any reasonable remedy against a finance house.
It is a small point and I do not want to labour it. It may or may not have been considered in detail. But I ask my hon. Friend to consider the point, because it seems to me that the word "representation" may have a different effect in law from that which is intended.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I rise to support the new Clause and to emphasise the force of the arguments which have been put forward. I do not think that I can usefully add to it because my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin)


has covered the ground. We are grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham), who has undoubtedly raised a point of importance. Indeed, I thought that in the latter part of his observations he was not attaching sufficient importance to his own proposition, because we shall want an assurance that a representation in this context means a warranty or condition. I follow the criticism, and I want the point pursued.
It is surely extremely difficult for the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this kind of thing at this stage. The hearts of all of us go out to him. He wants to do justice, and the forces of the matter are not helping him. In my thinking about Clause 10 as I have been concerned with the Bill, I thought that representation had a meaning covering a warranty, but I quite see now that there may be a doubt about that as a matter of interpretation of the Statute. It will be interesting to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary says on this important point.

Mr. John Robertson: I shall not enter too deeply into this discussion on the niceties of English law concerning warranties or representations, because they have no standing in Scottish law. If we were to discuss Scottish law, we should need to speak about stipulations.
The House would do better to consider the matter in another way. One of the great evils of the growth of hire purchase has been the separation of the hirer from the person who is normally looked upon as the person selling him the goods—the shopkeeper or the garage proprietor. The hirer finds himself in a relationship with a distant finance company with which it is difficult to communicate and from which it is difficult to obtain any satisfaction. The law has failed to keep pace with the facts of hire purchase.
I am not competent to say whether the Clause fills the gap. By some means we should try to restore the legal relationship between the customer and the shopkeeper, garage proprietor or other person who sells him goods and makes a bargain with him. The customer believes that he has made a bargain with

the shopkeeper, but eventually finds that he is in relationship with a far distant and not very obvious organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) spoke of the distance between Nottingham and South Wales. The finance houses concerned with sales in Scotland are probably situated in London, and the distance is even greater. As the distance increases it is harder to obtain satisfaction.
As the Clause is to apply to Scotland and as we are dealing with representations and warranties, we should hear some expert opinion on its effect on stipulations. Insufficient attention has been paid to the difference between the English law of contract and the Scottish law of contract. If the Clause were accepted, it would require considerable modification to find an application in Scotland. This is a sufficiently important point to merit the Parliamentary Secretary's special attention. I hope that he will deal with the Scottish aspect.

Mr. Weitzman: I am somewhat troubled at the effect this suggestion will have. Having carefully read Clause 10 it seems that it makes the dealer the agent of the owner or seller and that any representations made by that dealer are representations which, presumably, will bind the owner, which is the hire purchase company. Presumably, in the case of representations, an action can be brought against both the dealer and the owner, in other words against the hire purchase company.
If my reading of the Clause is right—and I am seeking the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary in this matter—then exactly the purpose of the suggestion we are considering will be achieved by the Clause. However, I, too, recognise the force of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) about warranties. There is a distinction in law on this matter and a considerable number of cases illustrate the importance of that distinction. It is, therefore, equally important that we should know that when the word "representation" is used it includes the word "warranty".

Mr. D. Price: It is necessary to put the proposed new Clause into its right perspective in the Bill. It is intended to


replace Clause 10 and, to decide whether this should be done, we must consider what Clause 10 achieves. The House will be aware—certainly hon. Members who took part in the Standing Committee proceedings—that we included Clause 10 to implement a recommendation of the Law Reform Committee. It provides that any representation which the dealer makes to the hirer or buyer about the goods is made by him as agent for the finance house. This is necessary to remove the possibility, which now exists, that a hirer or buyer who is induced by misrepresentations by the dealer to enter into an agreement may have no remedy because his agreement is with the finance house and not with the dealer.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham) asked me about the distinction between a warranty and a representation. I confess that those of us who are not learned in the law, particularly on this sort of point, do not find that answers on legal matters spring to mind. However, I have had a quick consultation with my legal advisers, who do not think that there will be a warranty given by a dealer which is not also a representation. They believe that the word "representation" is the correct one. Unfortunately, I am at a disadvantage for not being learned in the law. However, I have given the snap opinion of my legal advisers.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: If the Parliamentary Secretary is right, would it not have been better to have spelt this out in the Bill?

Mr. Price: I am advised, although I confess that I do not know, that this is clear in the present drafting. This is rather like what happens when one is taught a foreign language. One is taught that a certain English word means, say, a certain French word. Then when one goes to France one is told, "No, it does not quite mean that ". Those of us who are not lawyers are in a difficult position when finding ourselves in the strange world of the lawyer, particularly when it comes to the terminology of drafting. We humble mortals merely know the sort of things we expect our laws to do. Perhaps we should all be learned in the law before standing for

Parliament, although I know that a number of hon. Members do not hold that view.

Mr. Bingham: I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying and I agree that nearly all warranties will import some degree of representation, although I do not believe that that is universally true. I cannot at the moment conjure up an example of where that is not the case, although I am certain that such examples exist.
Nevertheless, that is not my point. I am concerned with the words in the Clause which say that any representation will be deemed to have been made by the agent to the owner. That means that there is a notional authority being conferred on the dealer—a notional authority to make representations, but not warranties. A warranty is different and the authority is limited to representing and not to making collateral contracts such as warranties.
One cannot forecast how such an argument as this would go in the courts but, if the Parliamentary Secretary really means to improve warranties in this phrase, I would ask whether it was not possible to include some words that say, for the avoidance of doubt, that representations shall be deemed to include contractual statements and warranties.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Price: My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that I cannot argue whether he is right or whether the advice I have been given is correct; I only regret that we did not have him to assist us in the Standing Committee. But I go back to the more substantial issue, if I may say so with respect to him. That was the case made out by the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr Silkin) that, in terms of consumer protection, Clause 10 does all that is necessary. It prevents the situation in which a hirer, misled by misrepresentation, has no remedy, but it does not detract from his rights against the dealer in cases where he at present has them. But it does not seek to regulate the relationship between dealer and finance house, which is a purely commercial relationship.
The first subsection of the proposed new Clause in effect preserves Clause 10(1), but, in addition, it provides that


any representations made by the dealer to the hirer as well as being deemed to have been made as agent of the owner shall also be deemed to have been made by the dealer to the finance house.
I realise that if finance houses are to be liable because of misrepresentations made by dealers and, in particular, if they may find hire-purchase agreements rescinded by hirers on these grounds, they want to be sure of parallel remedies themselves against the dealer. But, for two reasons, I do not think that this subsection would have the desired result. First, an innocent misrepresentation which had induced the hirer to enter into the agreement would not have induced the finance house to buy the goods from the dealer and, even with the subsection, would not give rise to a right of rescission. Secondly, it does not follow that because a hirer can rescind a hire-purchase agreement on the ground of a misrepresentation, a finance house could rescind a contract of sale. There is considerable doubt in law, I am advised, whether an agreement that has been completed, as the contract of sale would have been, can be rescinded.
The second subsection of the proposed new Clause deals with implied conditions and warranties in hire-purchase and credit-sale agreements, and with their enforcement. It again seeks to provide that, where the hirer takes action on account of a breach of such a condition or warranty, the finance house shall have a like remedy against the dealer. It also seeks to give the hirer the same remedy against the dealer as he will have against the finance house.
There are two aspects. The first is that of consumer protection. We see no need to seek to give the consumer added rights, such as are here proposed. His rights against the finance house, which is the other party to the contract, are all he needs. Indeed, where his remedy is to rescind the agreement, I cannot see how this is appropriate as between himself and the dealer.
Secondly, there is the relationship between the finance house and the dealer. Again, I do not think that this should be regulated as an appendage to a provision designed for consumer protection. This, of course, is a matter to be deter-

mined between the two commercial concerns involved. I see no reason why finance houses should not, if they wish, cover in the agreements which regulate their relations with dealers such matters as the consequences to them of acts or omissions by the dealer, whether through making misrepresentations or through supplying goods that do not fulfil the terms of the hire-purchase agreement. We believe that this is a business relationship, and that it should not lie within the province of a Bill that is essentially to protect the consumer.

Mr. Darling: Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider some of the difficulties of interpretation which hon. Members on both sides, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham), have raised. I know that this is the final stage of the Bill, but, judging by the way which I think the business is to be conducted, it will be possible, provided Mr. Speaker agrees, to table Amendments on this important matter at what I might call the next stage of the Bill—in other words, when we deal with the Amendments.
I will go no further than that. I merely ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can give us an undertaking that this matter will be considered so as to make it absolutely clear that what is intended in the Bill regarding representations is covered and to ensure that none of the difficulties which have been raised will arise in practice in the courts.

Sir E. Errington: Most finance houses have always accepted a moral obligation in these matters. It would be very sad if, as a result of misunderstanding about the effect of the word "representations", the Clause resulted in a large amount of litigation which has not arisen before.

Mr. Price: May I respond to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling)? I think that the House will be aware that we are unlikely to proceed very much further tonight. Therefore, as we are still dealing with the new Clauses, we have time to have another look at Clause 10 and to consider with those more learned in the law than myself the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Bingham).

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(REBATES OF CHARGES FOR ANTICIPATION OF PAYMENT.)

(1) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in any agreement to which this Act applies, the hirer or buyer may discharge such agreement by payment in full at any time before the maturity of the final instalment payable thereunder and if does so shall receive and be entitled to receive a rebate of the credit service charge provided in the agreement. The amount of any such rebate shall represent at least as great a proportion of the balance of the credit service charge described in subsection (2) hereof as the sum of the periodic balances calculated for each and every period following that in which payment in full is made bears to the sum of all the periodic balances for each and every period comprised in the full term provided for in the agreement provided always that the hirer or buyer shall not be entitled to any rebate of the credit service charge where the amount of such rebate shall be less than £1.

The period to be used for the calculation shall be one month where the interval between any two consecutive instalments is one month or more and one week where such interval is less than one month.

"Periodic balance" shall be the sum of the instalments to mature under the terms of the agreement and shall be calculated for each and every period whether or not an instalment is due to be paid for that period.

(2) The balance of the credit service charge mentioned in subsection (1) hereof will be the credit service charge stated in the agreement less a handling fee which shall be a sum equal to 20 per cent. of that credit service charge subject to a maximum handling fee of £15, and a minimum of £3.

(3) At the end of the Notice set out in the Schedule to the principal Act, there shall be inserted the following:—
Rebate for anticipation of payment:
The hirer may pay the whole amount provided for under this agreement at any time before the final payment becomes due. In this event, he will be entitled to receive such rebate of the credit service charge as is laid down by section (Rebates of charges for anticipation of payment) of the Hire Purchase Act 1964".—[Mr. Darling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This proposed new Clause deals with a matter which we discussed very briefly in Standing Committee. We considered how to make arrangements in law, if it was thought desirable to do so—and I think it is desirable—for a customer who ends a hire-purchase contract with a lump-sum payment before the contract has run out. We wish to provide means whereby customers who pay off their

hire-purchase debts before time can have a return of that part of the payments to which we think they are clearly entitled.
At present, there is no legal obligation on finance companies to give the hirer who settles his contract ahead of time any rebate of charges, but, in practice, most reputable finance companies give a rebate. I gathered from the discussion which we had in Standing Committee that, in principle at least, the Parliamentary Secretary supports me to the hilt. He knows that rebates vary considerably between companies. If one asked a number of different companies what their rebate allowances were, one would get a number of different answers. We therefore think that there is a case for recognising rebates in law and for bringing some uniformity into the matter.
The main reason for our proposal is that the early settlement of transactions is not uncommon. I was surprised to learn that about half of all motor vehicle transactions are settled ahead of time. When people take out a hire-purchase contract for the purpose of a motor car, they apparently go for the longest period of payment, which is three years. They then get tired of the car and want to swap it for another, so they quickly settle up and either buy a new car or enter into a part-exchange deal which may involve a second-hand car. The rebate on early settlement is, therefore, of great importance, because many people are involved.
I understand, also, that the finance companies, noting the large number of cases in which people settle ahead of time their hire-purchase payments for motor cars, have entered into competition with each other to give attractive rebates. The attractions vary according to whether the finance company will be involved in the further deal for the second motor vehicle that the customer wants or whether the customer will go elsewhere. They offer favourable terms to keep the motor-car customer within the field of their operations. There are thus differences between the rebates which are offered in different circumstances. There are variations up to about £30 or £40 depending upon whether the second transaction will be with the same finance company or


whether the customer goes somewhere else.
Our view is that the time has come to prescribe a minimum rebate to which the hirer should be entitled if he wishes to pay in full during the currency of the contract. As Parliamentary Secretary knows, this is done in other countries. We think that it should be done here. Indeed, the new Clause adopts an internationally known and accepted formula for the calculation of rebates in consumer credit transactions. It applies to the balance of the credit charge after the deduction of a reasonable handling fee so that the hirer will get an equitable rebate on the interest element in the credit charge.
At this late hour, I need not go into an explanation of the formula. Having had to study the matter before we put down our new Clause in Committee, and having had further opportunities to study it again, I now understand the 78th formula or the sum of the digits.
After considerable ingenuity, and with the help of people more skilled in these matters than I will ever be, we think that we have overcome the objections which the Parliamentary Secretary put forward against the Clause which we moved in Standing Committee. On that occasion, the hon. Gentleman said:
I am sure that in general terms it is desirable that rebate should be given for early payment. I am told that many of the better finance houses do just that. The question is whether it would be desirable to put that into a statute, and if one decided to do so, whether it is actuarially practicable.
After very careful examination of the matter, we believe that the method of the new Clause deals with the matter clearly and provides for a minimum rebate arrangement on the formula which the Parliamentary Secretary knows all about and which, if he does not understand it, I am willing even at this hour to explain to him.
We do not think that any of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman adduced against the previous new Clause apply to this one. In Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman said:
I am willing to look at this again, but when we looked at the new Clause we felt that it was too complicated. I shall certainly look at it again, because in general I am in favour of rebates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT.

Standing Committee F, 9th April, 1964; c. 401–2.]
I am confident, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will now accept the new Clause, because even I can understand it.
The hon. Gentleman has said repeatedly today that it is difficult for him to deal with many of the problems which have been raised in debate this evening and tonight because he is not learned in the law. Neither am I. I can understand this Clause, however, and therefore it cannot be complicated. It is clear, concise and explains precisely what we mean. Even laymen who have never even bothered to find out what rebate charges are, could understand from the Clause what we are getting at, and we feel sure that if there were any legal disagreement on this matter in the court it would be quite easy on the basis of the Clause to settle it.
10.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary has frequently expressed himself in favour of the principle of the Clause, that a person who settles his contract ahead of time should get a rebate on the hire-purchase charges he has met over a long period. By settling ahead of time he is owed something by the finance house and we think it only just that a rebate should be given to him. I am sure that because the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with us and because the Clause is so clear, precise and understandable, the Government will accept it.

Sir E. Errington: The Clause is not as simple to read as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has said it is. This does not seem to me a matter to be dealt with by statutory enactment. As has been said, rebates for charges, generally speaking, are given because it is a sound and prudent thing to do from a business point of view. It will not be very effective to put this principle into statutory form and it might produce disputes and difficulties which otherwise would not exist. I do not want to go into the details at this hour, but in general principle the present situation should be left as it is.

Mr. D. Price: I would remind the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) that, although he quoted me extremely fairly, I gave warning in Committee of the practical difficulties which


I feared we might encounter on this matter of rebates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) has rightly pointed out, many finance houses already give rebates to hirers who settle their agreements early. We all agree that this is desirable. The difference between the hon. Member for Hillsborough and myself is that he wants to make it statutory, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot thinks that it should be discretionary and that good commercial practice will encourage finance houses to exercise that discretion.
Since the Committee stage I have looked carefully at this matter. To be acceptable, the scheme has to be fair to both hirer and finance house, and to be workable it will have to be a scheme under which the hirer could readily ascertain how much the rebate was to which he was entitled. The hon. Member for Hillsborough, as always in his modesty, underestimated his own intelligence and his ability at mathematics.
The problem of making the scheme fair to both sides is complicated. I realise that the Clause goes a long way, if perhaps or, somewhat arbitrary lines. The first thing is to divide up the hire-purchase charges. Part of them go to pay overhead expenses of the finance house, for such things as the setting up of the agreement and the collection of instalments. These are little affected by early settlement, and in the proposed new Clause they are excluded from the rebate calculation under the title of a "handling charge".
The figures, if arbitrary, do not seem to me to be entirely unreasonable, although £15 does seem somewhat high. But there is a more important point. When members of the public complain about this matter of rebates, it is often because they think that on an early settlement they should get a proportionate rebate on the whole of the hire-purchase charge. They do not realise there is this question of overheads, and that the interest element in each instalment reduces as the hire-purchase agreement proceeds, and so does the rebate. For these reasons, unless any statutory provision were very clear, the public might often think that they were being cheated and might try to enforce excessive claims.
The balance of charges after the deduction of the handling fee is what is to be eligible, under the Clause, for rebate. The amount of rebate is set out in subsection (1). I realise that since the Committee stage the hon. Gentleman has amended the formula to make it applicable to a wider variety of agreements than his Clause previously was, but the trouble is that, as far as any ordinary person is concerned, subsection (1) is not immediately comprehensible.
The only possibility, it seemed to us, would be if we could reduce the sum to a simple formula which an ordinary hirer could be expected to apply. We took expert advice and found that this would not be possible with the Bill as it now stands. We got a formula, but it was not a practical proposition for this purpose. Beside it, the formula which we rave incorporated in Schedule 3 for calculating a rate of interest is simplicity itself, and that formula is one which we felt able to include in the Bill because traders would have occasion to use it, but the public at large would not.
I have a formula with me, but it is so complicated that I will not attempt to read it out. Whereas I would be prepared to discuss it in mathematical terms, I find it difficult to make speeches in trigonometry, although I would be prepared to discuss it with a blackboard.
We found that the only way in which we could reduce the calculation of rebates to a simple formula would be if the Bill laid down that every hire-purchase agreement must provide for the payment of equal instalments at equal intervals. Such a general provision could be very restrictive in some circumstances, particularly in the field of hiring agricultural machinery, and we do not think that we would be justified in imposing it for this purpose which is not central to a hire-purchase transaction.
There is, moreover, one factor which is not specifically mentioned in the proposed new Clause. If a hirer is entitled to a rebate for paying early, it would also seem reasonable that this rebate should be diminished to take account of any occasion during the course of the agreement when he was, in fact, late in making a payment. This is another of the practical points which the Molony


Committee examined. In the early stages of an agreement, late payment by the hirer clearly is relatively expensive for the finance house.
Many finance houses adopt a sympathetic attitude if a hirer falls behind in his payments for some genuine reason such as ill health or temporary unemployment. This, I am sure we would all agree, is desirable. But I wonder, if they were bound by a rebate scheme which presumed that the hirer had paid as required under the agreement at each appropriate moment, whether finance houses would necessarily feel able to maintain such a sympathetic attitude to those who fell back, for good reasons, on their payments.
I have, I hope, said enough to show that we have considered this matter carefully. Had I thought the proposal was practical, we would have given effect to it. Given the facts, much though in spirit I would like to do so, I cannot advise the House to accept the proposed Clause. The size of the matter, as a problem of consumer protection, I believe can be exaggerated. In practical terms, this is a question of motor cars. A large proportion of hire-purchase transactions for motor cars are settled early, and the amount involved is sufficient to suggest a significant rebate. Even here there is a qualification. The rebate is not very much once the two-thirds mark has been passed—that is, after two years under the common three-year agreement. Rebates are, in fact, widely paid.
The usual reason for early settlement of agreements for cars is that the hirer is changing his car for a new one or a better model. It is true that at least some finance houses try to hold on to their customers by offering a higher rebate if the new hire-purchase agreement for the replacement car is made with them. That is understandable—and it is, of course, something which this Clause, which would prescribe a minimum rebate, would not prevent. The suggestion that it is unfair competition for a finance house to try to hold on to its customer in this way does not seem to me to be justified. After all, finance houses are in business to have their money at work, and it is no advantage to them to have it repaid prematurely.
In conclusion, I come back to agreeing with the Molony Committee, that, desirable though rebates are, it is not a matter for a statutory provision. Therefore, I could not advise the House to accept the new Clause, simple though the hon. Gentleman would have us believe it is.

Mr. Darling: Naturally, I am disappointed with the reply. I find it hard to believe that the matter has had the full consideration which the Parliamentary Secretary promised. After all, other countries are able to run this.
I should like to quote two sentences from a booklet issued in the State of New York which covers the point in respect of anyone taking up a hire-purchase agreement:
You have the right to pay the contract or obligation in full at any time before the date of the final payment regardless of what may be stated to the contrary therein in the contract. If you are able to repay your debt before the maturity date you are entitled to such refund of the credit service charge, if any, as determined by a formula prescribed by law.
This is the formula. As the Parliamentary Secretary says, it is as simple as in Schedule 3.

Sir E. Errington: With reference to what the hon. Gentleman quoted, is not that a law based on the personal loans principle rather than hire purchase?

Mr. Darling: No. It is called by a different name, but it is precisely in line with our chattel mortgage, which we call hire purchase, where one lodges the same goods, in effect, as security against the loan.
In the circumstances, and owing to the way we are conducting the proceedings on the Bill, we cannot take this further. However, I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary uttered two or three sentences which we shall use very effectively when we come to the next Clause. He said that we must be fair as between owner and hirer, that the hirer must understand clearly what he is entitled to receive, and there were one or two other quotations, for which we thank him very much indeed. I think that he understands how well they will be used.
I regret that we cannot press the Clause for inclusion in the Bill. It ought to be included.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. D. Price: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
I think that the House will agree that we have made reasonable progress. I hope that we may look forward to completing the Bill during the course of another day.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION LINES (BARR BEACON)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

10.45 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I think it only proper that I should preface my remarks by asking you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to express to Mr. Speaker my very real gratitude to him for having been good enough to select this subject which I wish to bring forward for debate, and particularly also, in the special circumstances of the case, that he was good enough to choose a day on which it was possible for me to attend. I flew over from America this morning, which is perhaps an indication of the importance which I personally attach to the matter.
I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power for his presence here tonight, because he is someone for whom in all his capacities here I have always had the deepest respect.
The object of this Motion is to invite the Minister of Power to reconsider his decision of 1st April—an appropriate day, some might think—to allow the Central Electricity Generating Board to install a double overhead line for some six miles across the urban district of Aldridge, and, in particular, to urge him to order the undergrounding of 2⅔ miles which, if it were not put underground, would upset the famous and historic beauty spot of the West Midland conurbation, namely, Barr Beacon.
This is no minor infringement of this beauty spot, because the size of the pylons which it is proposed to employ would in one case be no less than 136½

ft. high at 400 yard intervals and in the case of the ether pylons they would vary in height from 158 ft. to 170 ft. and be at intervals of 400 to 600 yards. I hope that my hon. Friend is not going to say to me that there is already a pylon line going across this very tract of ground because, while admitting this, I would also remind him that the present pylons are really of a modest sort, such as we are familiar with, and are one-third of the height of the pylons proposed to be installed, and are sited so as not to spoil the view.
These monsters are no playthings. They are the very hallmark of the industrial civilisation that the people who live in the Black Country seek occasionally to escape by recourse to beauty spots, and among these Barr Beacon is outstanding.
I do not want to argue that the Central Electricity Generating Board is heedless of amenities. With my hon. Friend I was a member of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries and we had the pleasure of hearing the evidence of Sir Christopher Hinton for many afternoons. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was on the Committee all the time, but Sir Christopher Hinton's personal interest and the attention that he paid to amenities were, I thought, very striking. I think hold us that he devoted as much as a quarter of his time to these particular problems, and this, of course, is something which a lesser man might have delegated.
I also want to make the point that I am not so obtuse as to think that amenity is purely visual. The engineering inspector of the Ministry made a very fair report. He said that where one objector argued that where there are visual amenities lines ought automatically to go underground regardless of cost, equally there would be others who would regard a cheap and reliable supply of electricity as an amenity in itself. In the latter case, such a person might rate the amenity value of cheap and plentiful electricity so high that he would demand it regardless of the loss of or damage to visual amenities. Clearly, this is a matter of judgment between two extremes, and it is the Minister's judgment in the matter which I am asking him to reconsider.
The facts are well known to my hon. Friend and I need not go into them at great length now. The Generating Board is seized of the necessity for improving the supply of electricity in the Birmingham area and for some years has been considering how to meet the growing needs of that area. It has come to the conclusion that the best way would be to run lines from the substation at Drakelow in Derbyshire to Bustleholm in Staffordshire. My constituents are not in any way disputing the need for a greater provision of electricity in future.
Application for planning permission was made by the Generating Board to the Staffordshire County Council on 17th February, 1962, and was approved by the clerk to that authority on 11th March, of the following year, in the following rather ambivalent terms:
The Local Authority approves of the proposed development subject to the observation in paragraph 1.
Paragraph 1 stated:
Aldridge Urban District Council raise strong objections to the proposed work in this area".
The subsequent facts are well known to my hon. Friend. The announcement that planning permission had been given for this overhead line raised a storm of protest in Aldridge and there were petitions by more than 3,000 residents. As a result, my right hon. Friend held a public inquiry on 12th and 13th September, and it is as a result of that inquiry that I have initiated the debate.
In parentheses, I should say that the Generating Board behaved perfectly correctly in advertising its intentions in the Press. This was not seized upon in this case because I think that people do not read that part of the Press, least of all the small print, with the attention which they should. It was not until the alertness of the Aldridge Council spotted the threat and made it known to the public that the protests poured in.
At the inquiry, the Minister made the case that of putting the cable underground so as not to spoil the area or, rather, desecrate Barr Beacon—the word used by the Minister himself—would add some £2,750,000 to the cost of the operation. Therefore, it is on a matter of £2,750,000 that I am addressing the

House tonight. It would not be reasonable to consider undergrounding the whole cable length of six miles, as was suggested by the Aldridge Council in the first instance.
Why should I, as a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, feel that this decision should be reconsidered? It is because it has a unique feature—Barr Beacon. To begin with, although it is not very high, it is still the highest hill between the Midlands of England and the Ural Mountains. It is surmounted by a clump of trees whose origins go back to the Druids. It is here that a beacon fire was lit to apprise the western counties of the arrival of the Armada.
I draw attention to the fact that on the top there is a little topographical observatory which bears this inscription:
Erected in 1933 to perpetuate the memory of the men and women of Staffordshire and Warwickshire who gave their lives in the Great War of 1914–18 and in grateful remembrance of the late Lieut.-Colonel Wilkinson who presented Barr Beacon to the people for ever.
When I go there I am always reminded of Housman's "Epitath on an Army of Mercenaries ". He wrote:
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay.
I think that when the men of Staffordshire and Warwickshire went to the Great War and, as we know, suffered almost unbearable losses, if there was a consolation to them in their agony it was the thought that their children would be able to live as free citizens of this country, and further that they might have the chance of enjoyment too by sometimes climbing Barr Beacon and knowing something of the land it had all been about. Something of this must have been in the mind of Colonel Wilkinson when he bought the land and presented it to the public in perpetuity as a war memorial.
The Minister, in what I hope he will forgive me for describing as rather an unfortunate phrase, has said that the Board agreed that Barr Beacon and views from it were not without merit, but did not think them outstanding. Macaulay's Jacobite "who pined by Arno" for his lovelier Tees would no doubt have learnt from the inspector that he was deficient in aesthetic appreciation. The extraordinary mixture of


views obtainable from Barr Beacon gives the true picture of the Midlands, that unique combination of industry and green pastureland, the view of which was dedicated, as I have said, as a memorial to the men of Staffordshire and Warwickshire and given to the people forever.
This could well be preserved if the Board accepted the expenditure of an additional £2¾ million, and this is the view—I know that my hon. Friend has not been up Barr Beacon although he accompanied me one day but it was far too dark to see—with its occasional glimpse of loveliness which the people of the West Midlands are to have desecrated and I repeat the word—because the Minister agrees with his inspector that, while not without merit, it is not outstanding.
Not long ago a friend of mine, James Lees-Milne, said on television:
We still love England because of its beautiful buildings and its surviving fields and woods; but if all its towns are to be dominated by supermarkets and car parks, and its farmlands by caravan sites and pylons, then why should we love it any more?".
Here we are, two reasonable men, discussing this matter late at night. I do not believe that my hon. Friend will tell me that he has changed his mind, but I cannot believe in my heart of hearts that these considerations which I have adduced are negligible, and when we think in these terms, the expenditure of £2¾ million which I have mentioned ought to be incurred.

10.59 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): Not long ago I had the pleasure and privilege of accompanying my hon. Friend to Walsall, and I had the honour of addressing his constituents. The fact that on that evening his constituency was wrapped in fog was unfortunate because, quite apart from the factor of darkness, it precluded me from enjoying the views of and from Barr Beacon. Nevertheless, on that occasion I was warned by my hon. Friend and by a number of his constituents of the importance which they attached to the views and the amenities of Barr Beacon. Now the worst has happened, and I am arraigned by my hon. Friend to answer the charge of vandalism on the part of the Central Electricity Generating Board.
I accept what my hon. Friend told the House about how far and how fast he has come here tonight, and I hope that he will forgive me if I say that his attendance from far away is a good deal more willing than mine from much nearer at hand.
He has been very fair. He said that he hoped that I would not be raising as an argument the fact that there are already some very modest pylons there. It is not my intention to do anything of that kind. However, he used one key phrase in referring to these "monsters" being the hallmarks of an industrial civilisation. Not only is it fair to describe them as hallmarks; it is almost inevitable that we should accept them as the concomitants—the inevitable companions—of industrial civilisation, a civilisation which has speeded up the demand for electricity at quite an alarming pace.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for his fairness in saying that he accepted that the Central Electricity Generating Board was not heedless of amenities. He paid generous tribute to Sir Christopher Hinton, in acknowledging the Chairman's concern for this side of the Board's activities. But he dismissed rather lightly an argument about the cheapness of electricity, and I want to return to that point later on.
He made one point which, although not one that I want to make much out of, I should deal with. He said that at the hearing my right hon. Friend made a case. That is not so. The case made at the hearing was made by the C.E.G.B., and it is one over which and in which my right hon. Friend has no part or influence whatever, until a later stage, when he is asked to confirm or otherwise the opinion and the report of the inspector appointed to hear the case.
My hon. Friend has spoken in very moving terms of the historical associations of this site, and of the fact that it was a memorial to the sufferings and agonies—as he put it—of men who died in a great war. I do not believe that this argument was adduced at the hearing, but I do not wish to rely upon that today: I content myself with saying that the argument which he has put forward is not lightly put on one side, and was not treated in any callous or unfeeling fashion.
My hon. Friend is already fully aware of the facts, and I do not wish to weary the House with a full statement of them. He has already referred to the fact that a letter from my Department, addressed to the Aldridge Urban District Council, dated 1st April, summed up the case both of the Board and the objectors to this proposal. The decision that my right hon. Friend reached, to confirm the report and view of the inspector, is one which cannot be reopened. My right hon. Friend, having made the decision, has no power to change it. I must make that quite clear. It would be valuable if I made the point, in passing, that all the necessary notices were published before the hearing, and that the hearing provided a very full opportunity for all those who objected to the scheme to be heard.
I accept that this is yet another case of people living near to beautiful countryside, which they value very greatly, objecting to its spoliation by the presence of these large towers.
It is always the case all over the country that those who live nearby feel that one of the most beautiful and valuable bits of England is about to be spoiled by such a scheme as this, but I do not accept from my hon. Friend—I cannot—that here we are arguing merely about £2¾ million because, unfortunately, for such an organisation as the Central Electricity Generating Board there is such a thing as precedent. What the Board concedes in one case it will be obliged to concede in others. It cannot possibly pick out one area for special privileged treatment. I accept, of course, that those who, like my hon. Friend, are concerned with a particular area look at that argument askance and without enthusiasm, but it is one of great concern for the Board and for electricity consumers.
The demand here is that both these lines, one of 400 kV and another of 275 kV should be put underground. As I told the House, I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with some of my hon. Friend's constituents when I visited Walsall. I took the opportunity to point out that the same people who object very strongly to the ruination of beautiful views also have very powerful views to express on the subject of high electricity bills. I think that the number

of occasions on which I have stood at this Box at this sort of hour answering Adjournment debates have been more or less equally divided between times when I have answered protests about high electricity bills and answering protests about spoiling beautiful views.
The proposals of the Generating Board on this occasion are for two lines of 400 kV and 275 kV across the Aldridge urban district which are necessary to reinforce supplies to Birmingham, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The towers will vary between 158 ft. and 170 ft. for the 400 kV line and slightly less for the 275 kV line. I absolutely accept that such structures cannot fail to have a very serious effect upon scenery, but I should make clear that the Staffordshire County Council, the planning authority concerned, did not object to this scheme. Hence, there was no public inquiry, but a hearing ordered by my right hon. Friend at the request of Aldridge Urban District Council.
I think I should go into the question of the costs because it is vital. If the difference between putting these lines overhead and putting heavily insulated cables underground was not so immense of course I would accept that the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend and others would be a great deal stronger than I am now prepared to admit. The distance of the lines through the whole area of the Aldridge urban district is about 4½ miles in all. The cost of putting both lines overhead throughout is £361,000. If both lines were put underground throughout—I accept that my hon. Friend did not ask for this—the cost would be something of the order of £6 million.
In this case the overhead line has been elongated and as far as possible planned by the Board to cause the minimum of damage to the amenities. But the cost of putting the cable underground would be more than £2,600,000 in excess of the cost of the overhead line. I have every sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friend as, I am certain, have the Generating Board, for it is impossible to deny sympathy to and to withhold understanding from people who are desperately concerned to preserve the beauties of the countryside. On the other hand, we live in a society which is stepping up in a most dramatic and alarming way its demand for


electricity. That electricity has to be transported as cheaply as possible.
It is roughly true to say that for a heavy-duty 400 kV line it is 21 times as expensive to put the cable underground as to put a line overhead. I should remind my hon. Friend of a fact sometimes ignored: that even if the line is put underground, there is a necessity for certain not very attractive structures to be above ground which do nothing to improve the view. That would be regarded by all concerned as an extensive outrage to the beauty of the countryside.
I am deeply sorry that I am unable to offer more comfort to my hon. Friend and his constituents. As I have said, I have had the benefit of hearing their views at first hand, and I would not disagree with much that they have said, save only that it is as well that those of them who are users of electricity should remember the size of the bill which they would have to pay for what they are asking.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.